In case you hadn’t yet got the message that people love “The Artist,” the French-made Oscar hopeful got further festival valentines over the weekend, taking prizes at both the Chicago and Hamptons International Film Festivals — the Audience Award in the latter case, and the Founder’s Award in the Windy City. (Apparently, that goes to the film across all categories that best captures the spirit of the Chicago fest. Now you know.)

We’ve discussed before how Michel Hazanavicius’s film is the type of novel crowdpleaser that tends to win scads of audience awards without even trying, building the platform for a healthy awards run outside the quarantined festival zone. (If I was surprised it didn’t take the equivalent prize at Toronto, I’m even more so after watching Nadine Labaki’s “Where Do We Go Now?” yesterday — but that’s another conversation.) This pair of wins may be small potatoes in themselves, but they’re just further fuel for the fire of an inevitable Oscar big-hitter. The film, incidentally, has its UK premiere at the London Film Festival tomorrow, and could well add to its trophy cabinet there.

Chicago’s top prize, meanwhile, went to a film that, since Cannes, has closely trailed “The Artist” in the festival-charmer stakes: Aki Kaurismäki’s gentle, socially conscious comedy “Le Havre,” which remains a strong possibility for Finland in the foreign-language Oscar race. At this stage, the appeal of Kaurismäki and especially Hazanavicius’s films hardly needs to be further proven with festival honors, so it’s nice to see both the Chicago and Hamptons list of winners touching on some highly deserving lower-profile names and titles.

Most gratifying of all is the Chicago Best Actress prize for British actress Olivia Colman, whose stunning breakout performance in “Tyrannosaur” I discussed in last week’s review. Colman has devoted fans in the blogosphere (Jeffrey Wells the loudest of them) and critical fraternity, but needs every bit of help she can get to bring her hard, tiny film to wider attention. All it takes, in this case, is for enough crucial voters to take a chance on the film — the performance speaks for itself. (Indeed, people are starting to hear the whispers: Colman today cracks the top five of Gold Derby’s Best Actress pool.)

Further down the winners lists are several strong indies I’ve recently seen at the London Film Festival and am delighted to see further recognized, including savage Australian true-crime drama “Snowtown” (champion in the After Dark category in Chicago), slippery US psychodrama “Without” (Pioneer Award and Best Cinematography at the Hamptons) and Iceland’s Oscar submission “Volcano” (New Directors’ prize in Chicago), a deeply moving drama of old-age regret and romance.

Speaking of the foreign Oscar race, US director Joshua Marston, whose Albanian blood-feud drama “The Forgiveness of Blood” was contentiously disqualified by the Academy, he at least got some compensation this week in the shape of accolades at both festivals: a special mention in the Hamptons and Best Screenplay (the same award he took at Berlin in February) in Chicago.

Finally, the list of Breakthrough Performance prizewinners at the Hamptons touches on several worthy names, including Emily Browning (“Sleeping Beauty”), Shailene Woodley (“The Descendants”) and Ezra Miller (here cited for “Another Happy Day,” but really one to watch this season for “We Need to Talk About Kevin”). Why Anton Yelchin was tapped for “Like Crazy,” and not the film’s clear standout Felicity Jones, is a mild head-scratcher.

Check out the full list of Chicago and Hamptons festival awards here and here. 

Four weeks of digging in on the acting races draws to a close today with the supporting actresses. Four weeks because there hasn’t been a lot to talk about, unless you want to draw dubious parallels between, say, “Moneyball” and the zeitgeist or hear for the hundredth time how “The Artist” is winning over festival audiences (and quickly becoming the most over-hyped film of the season).

So let’s see what we’re working with. Three performances that seem formidable and have actually been seen seems like a novel place to start.

In “The Help,” Octavia Spencer gets a mixture of heart-string tuggery and comic relief. She claimed an early spot in the category when the film opened in August, claimed three straight weekends at the top of the box office and shot up the list of Best Picture hopefuls. However, I’m wondering lately whether she’ll be joined by a co-star.

The supporting actress field is notable for consistently allowing for multiple performers in one film to slide in. Recent examples have come in films like “Almost Famous,” “Gosford Park,” “Chicago,” “Babel,” “Doubt,” “Up in the Air” and just last year in “The Fighter.” With that in mind, Jessica Chastain is having a bang-up year and it would just seem wrong if she were to miss out on some recognition, and by many accounts, she’s the best part of “The Help.” I’m thinking maybe that can happen.

Chastain also shows up, as if we need to mention it yet again, in “Take Shelter,” “The Tree of Life,” “The Debt” and “Coriolanus,” in order of potential for recognition. Quite the slate.

Even earlier than August — going way back to the Berlinale in February — Vanessa Redgrave started turning heads in Ralph Fiennes’s “Coriolanus,” which The Weinstein Company eventually picked up. She seems to be the most agreed-upon contender in the field so far. (She also gives a wonderful performance as Queen Elizabeth I in “Anonymous” that will help her cause.)

Moving on, Shailene Woodley gets a nice mixture of comedy and drama in “The Descendants” and has the kind of sparkling personality that goes a long way on the circuit. Meanwhile, Judi Dench is said to be quite a presence in Clint Eastwood’s “J. Edgar,” so assuming the film delivers, or assuming the performances stand on their own in case it doesn’t, she is someone to watch (also popping up, though briefly, in “My Week with Marilyn”).

A pair of performances that first took a bow at the Venice Film Festival this year could stand out in Carey Mulligan (“Shame”) and Keira Knightley (“A Dangerous Method”). The former has already been well-positioned by her publicists for a Hollywood Film Awards honor, while the latter’s categorization is still somewhat in question. I can’t get an answer out of Sony Pictures Classics on it, but perhaps they’ll see the error of their ways with the doomed lead push for Lesley Manville last year and keep Knightley where she has the best shot at some recognition.

Speaking earlier of “The Artist,” one aspect of the film could bubble up here and that’s Bérénice Bejo’s performance opposite sure-fire leading actor contender Jean Dujardin. That film started its awards path in Cannes, while “Albert Nobbs” and a charismatic turn from Janet McTeer first took off at Telluride.

Elsewhere there are some question marks. Sandra Bullock could have enough emotional material to dig in on in “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close,” or not. Naomi Watts might have something substantial to work with in “J. Edgar,” or not. And Emily Watson might stand out in Steven Spielberg’s “War Horse,” or not.

What we do know is Marion Cotillard is charming and irresistible in “Midnight in Paris.” We know Bryce Dallas Howard is diabolically bitchy in the outstanding ensemble of “The Help.” We know Evan Rachael Wood shows some impressive range in “The Ides of March.” We know Anjelica Huston does the utmost with her limited screen time in “50/50” and we know Elle Fanning was one of, if not the best part of J.J. Abrams’ “Super 8.”

And we also know a lot of people are trying really hard to insert Melissa McCarthy into this conversation for her work in “Bridesmaids” in the wake of her Emmy win (though I’d be tempted to agree with Guy that Rose Byrne is more deserving).

But this is a race very much in transition and fluid at the moment, I think. I expect things to solidify over the next few weeks, but for now, there are a lot of possibilities.

Now. The Contenders section. It’s ready! I’ll be introducing it and linking to it separately later this morning/afternoon, but the wait is over. The sidebar will be expanded soon enough to include all of the categories once again, but for now, at least we have the various fields set here at our new HitFix digs. More shortly.

What are your thoughts on the Best Supporting Actress race? Have your say in the comments section below!

http://players.brightcove.net/4838167533001/BkZprOmV_default/index.html?videoId=4914173126001

Fox Searchlight’s “Martha Marcy May Marlene” opens in limited release later this week. The film is one of unraveling mystery, immaculately crafted and precisely performed. It’s a rousing debut accomplishment for filmmaker Sean Durkin and one that could sustain the long march from Sundance (where the film premiered in January) to Oscar night.

It’s certainly deserving in areas like Best Director, Best Cinematography and Best Film Editing, but I think it’s best chances are for Best Actress (the brilliant Elizabeth Olsen) and Best Original Screenplay. But I imagine Durkin and Olsen, at the very least, will be receiving breakthrough notices all season.

Fox Searchlight has given us an exclusive featurette that takes you behind the scenes of the making of the film. Interviews with Durkin, Olsen, actors John Hawkes, Hugh Dancy, Sarah Paulson and more are included. Click on through to have a look.

(Be sure to check back tomorrow for an Olsen-inspired list of the greatest debut performances of all time, and later in the week for an interview with Olsen and Hawkes about their work in the film. Guy, meanwhile, will be chatting with Durkin from the London Film Festival some time soon.)

It’s been nice lately to see the “Jackie Brown” gang, mainly Pam Grier, Samuel L. Jackson and Robert Forster, make the press rounds this month on the occasion of the film’s Blu-ray release. That was such an interesting awards season for that film. Grier and Jackson received the lion’s share of precursor notices, the former getting a SAG nomination while both landed Golden Globe nods. After only a few tips of the hat, and none of them substantial, it was Forster who got the Oscar bid. Very cool. Devin Faraci recently sat down with Grier. [Badass Digest]

Jeff Wells sits down with “The Descendants” star Judy Greer. [Hollywood Elsewhere]

“Star Trek” and “Heroes” star Zachary Quinto steps up and out of the closet. Bravo. [ZacharyQuinto.com]

Sports writer Jonathan Mahler draws a fuzzy line between “Moneyball” and the zeitgeist. [New York Times]

Pete Hammond reports from Robert Downey Jr.’s American Cinemateque fete, where the “Avengers” star asked for forgiveness for Mel Gibson. [Deadline]

Antonio Banderas and Elena Anaya continue the “Skin I Live In” press tour, this time talking to Amy Lee. [Huffington Post]

Is ‘Tyrannosaur’ poverty porn? [The Guardian]

Steve Pond conveys the “news” that a Carmel “J. Edgar” screening never happened because of a black out and technical issues. Okie dokie. [The Odds]

Leonardo DiCaprio is set to debut against himself on Christmas Day 2012. [Motion/Captured]

Claudia Puig breathes some life into the conversation on “A Better Life,” speaking to the principals as the film is one of the first screeners to hit voters’ shelves. [USA Today]

You’d have been forgiven for thinking that Steven Spielberg had lost his fun gene after he last gifted our cinema screens, a distant-seeming three years ago, with the dismal “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”: a soulless, haphazardly crafted piece of directorial brand-whoring, in which Harrison Ford’s eyes appeared deader than those of any mo-cap mannequin.

Tardily reviving a beloved franchise that seemed to have reached generational closure in its third installment was always a dubious move — but it acquires full-blown redundancy with the arrival of “The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn,” a springy, souped-up entertainment whose ample boy’s-own pleasures hew far closer to the original Indiana Jones template than that dim 2008 sequel.

Of course, the Tintin-Indy parallel is neither original nor accidental: Spielberg was allegedly first drawn to Belgian author-artist Hergé”s classic boy-adventurer comics 30 years ago, after some critics made the comparison in reviews of “Raiders of the Lost Ark”; he”s held the film rights to the series, on and off, since 1983, himself visualizing the films as “Indiana Jones for kids.”

He”s had a long time to think about it, to put it lightly, and that thought process is visibly up there on the screen: as lovingly detailed an homage to the director”s own past glories as to the source material itself, the film is perhaps most notable for its lack of tonal compromise, and occasionally hampered by an urge to translate as many facets of the Tintin phenomenon as the markedly trim 106-minute film can hold. (It”s worth noting that “Tintin” is the shortest theatrical feature of Spielberg”s career; if the rigors and restrictions of motion-capture technology are what”s making him work this tidily, then bring on the future.)

Many Hergé devotees, this writer included, may have expressed concerns about the stability of a marriage between Hollywood”s foremost purveyor of high-gloss, high-concept mass entertainment and the more quizzically European charms of the 1940s-set comics. What the American and the late Belgian share, however, is a story-loyal earnestness that serves the film well: the Tintin books were never as quippy or ironic as the comparable French-speaking Asterix franchise (when I was growing up, kids mostly sided with one or the other), characterized instead by the density of their mystery plots and the gentleness (wetness, detractors might say) of their humor. Never a filmmaker accused of great wit, Spielberg”s wide-eyed naïvete as a yarn-spinner is what protects the material from the dread threat of a winking postmodern makeover.

Such treatment did appear to be on the cards with the recruitment of hip British comedy merchants Edgar Wright (“Shaun of the Dead”) and Joe Cornish (“Attack the Block”) to polish Steven Moffat”s initial screenplay, but the rollicking, action-heavy narrative scarcely offers breathing room for their more singular affectations. (One of them, an unprompted bestiality-themed joke involving sheep and sailors, strikes a decidedly odd note.) A grab-bag of story elements from three of Hergé”s books that sometimes leaves the seams exposed – as in a protracted and rhythmically misplaced flashback sequence of high-seas swashbuckling – the script is mostly content simply to follow Tintin, the boyish Brussels-based reporter-turned-detective realized here by Jamie Bell, around.

He”s certainly busy enough: his quest on this occasion, zippy nonsense involving buried pirate”s booty that scarcely warrants description, takes him from Western Europe to the Sahara to Morocco and back again. In pursuit is Daniel Craig”s supercilious villain; in constant attendance are his two chief allies from throughout the series, sozzled Scottish seadog Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis) and, of course, his little white mutt Snowy. (Fans may be disappointed by the rather cursory treatment meted out to recurring subsidiary characters, including bumbling detectives Thompson and Thomson and preening Milanese soprano Bianca Castafiore. Next time, perhaps.)

Only in detailing the circumstances of Tintin and Haddock”s acquaintance, and incorporating Marlinspike Hall, the grand Haddock family mansion that remains their joint home throughout the comics, does the film count as an origin story: for the most part, the uninitiated are blithely required to accept without explanation this family-free child-man”s curious career path.

(Perhaps as a nod to the character”s unlikely latter-day status as a gay icon, the script has some evasive fun with the question of Tintin”s sexuality, or lack thereof: “I”d rather you keep them on, thank you very much,” he primly replies to Haddock”s figurative line about being caught with his pants down, while a neighbor informs us that “Mr. Tintin has strictly no visitors after bedtime.”)

It”s all sufficiently propulsive that the motion-capture technology used to render this whole adventure becomes a less distinguishing hook than it might have been – which is as well, since for all its unprecedented state-of-the-art application here, the medium still demands occasional compromises in magic, notably in the area of character work. Tintin in particular, pastier and more physically edgeless than the wiry ginger of Hergé”s designs, isn”t the most appealing of presences. (Mo-cap king Andy Serkis, however, does prove that forceful voice work – this time with a lavish Scottish brogue – can override visual barriers.)

Still, the film”s smashing key set pieces – notably a gorgeous, breathless downhill chase through the streets and canals of Bagghar as thrilling as any live-action sequence from Spielberg”s oeuvre – fully justify this technological leap of faith, while also successfully adapting the distinctive flat-color textures of Hergé”s trademark ligne claire drawing style. It”s in these scenes, presumably the toughest for the director to build with these unfamiliar tools, that “The Adventures of Tintin” nonetheless feels most effortlessly Spielbergian, with John Williams”s insistently clangy score (most interesting when it creeps, “Catch Me If You Can”-style) a comfort even when it overbears.

If any one image from the film sums up the assurance of this lickety-split franchise-starter, it”s the playful sight gag of Tintin”s trademark red quiff cutting through the ocean like a shark fin from “Jaws”: where Spielberg”s last film dispassionately clung to his popular legacy, this fresh, foreign inspiration gets him to include himself in the joke.

LONDON – When you stop to think about it, “like crazy” is a curiously cautious modifier to weld to any expression of devotion, placing as it does the safe distance of simile between love and madness, where many would describe those two states as sequential. If only on a semantic level, loving someone like crazy isn”t quite the same as being crazy in love; it”s less reckless, more self-aware, less… well, crazy.

I very much doubt this was on writer-director Drake Doremus”s mind, nor should it have been, when he titled his Sundance-laurelled romantic drama “Like Crazy.” But the distinction seems apt for a film whose two young, geographically separated protagonists seemingly spend several years acting out a love story, as opposed to actually living one.

As winsome college students Jacob (Anton Yelchin) and Anna (Felicity Jones) find their romance repeatedly arrested by real life-native Londoner Anna”s US visa expires, forcing protracted across-the-pond negotiations that culminate in a premature marriage-distance swiftly becomes its defining characteristic. As the relationship itself takes a backseat to its reparation, the harried lovers must consistently chase and recreate their initial feelings for each other.

That”s a pointedly sad summary of romance in the distraction-strewn 21st century, and a loaded premise for a feature film. So it”s hard to pin down precisely why “Like Crazy,” until a pleasingly ambivalent conclusion, feels so wan and emptily precious in its exploration of this scenario. Perhaps it”s because, much like the spoiled, directionless pair at its center-who bemoan the circumstances keeping them apart as they bat away certain sacrifices that could keep them together-the film wants it both ways, inviting the audience to lose themselves in the swirl of a star-crossed romance while the filmmakers zero in on eminently credible but dramatically dry practicalities. International visa wrangling, real and relatable problem that it is, isn”t the most compelling hook for a love story, particularly when the characters” ample social privileges don”t contribute much in the way of peril: this isn”t “Last Resort” we”re talking about here.

All of which is to say that as much as I believed “Like Crazy,” tenderly told cautionary tale that it is, I didn”t particularly feel it: I found myself watching the film with all the surface sympathy one musters for second-hand accounts of an acquaintance”s personal misfortune. That might be because Jacob and Anna, as written, never feel to us like more than passing acquaintances themselves. Both heavier on characteristics than actual character (He makes furniture! She makes scrapbooks! They both love Paul Simon!), they sorely want for context outside their own relationship. For two attractive, personable twentysomethings, it”s remarkable how few close friends they seem to have between them: only Anna”s loving but invasive parents (Alex Kingston and Oliver Muirhead) provide fleeting links to the outside world, even if it”s a world so bourgeois as to grant Laphroaig whisky the status of tap water.

Felicity Jones, recipient of a jury prize at Sundance that may reflect as much on her fine performance as on the desirability of the plummily-accented dreamgirl she plays, is a sufficiently astute actress to turn this haziness to her advantage. (“Only the smudgeness of it,” to crib a telling line from one of Anna”s twee but not-unpromising student poems.) In her best scenes, particularly those that allude to Anna”s functional alcohol dependency, Jones carefully outlines the missing parts of a wary young woman still in search of her own motor, daring to render her petulant and only sporadically likeable in the process.

Yelchin, on the other hand, rather fades into the character”s irresolute blandness: sweet kid that he is, it”s difficult to see what makes both Jones and Jennifer Lawrence (affecting in a crucially underwritten role as Anna”s L.A.-based romantic rival) so keenly hinged on his affections, furthering the rather diagrammatic nature of the romance at hand. Doremus, for his part, seems to shirk drama and outright conflict in favor of cute, high-style editing decisions: too many scenes saunter casually into the aftermath of a conflict or breakup, or politely duck out just as things start looking hairy, needlessly abbreviating emotional transitions even as they create interesting rhythmic fillips.

Other stylistic choices are more derivatively unsuccessful: stock date montages serve as idle shorthand for the forging of a personal connection, while one tricksy time-lapse shot appears to imply that Anna spends six months in a Heathrow arrivals hall. At its most banal, the film underlines the capital-P Poignancy of their separation with emphatically twinned activity shots, capped with the line, “Do you wanna come over?” – at which point this sweet but rigidly uncrazy film plays less like an incisive contemporary romance than a well-shot cellphone commercial. Perhaps, for these intriguingly affectless Generation Y-ers, that”s what love feels like.

I’m really bummed I’ll be out of town next Thursday, October 20, because the live read of John Hughes’s “The Breakfast Club” script, directed by Jason Reitman as a part of Film Independent’s LACMA (Los Angeles County Museum of Art) film series. Reitman is serving as the first guest artist for the inaugural program.

Reitman announced via Twitter that Patton Oswalt will read the part of Brian Johnson, portrayed by Anthony Michael Hall in Hughes’s 1985 original film. The rest of the “surprise cast” will be unveiled by Reitman throughout the week. I’m privy to a few of them, but I’ll say no more. It promises to be a very Reitman-esque event, I’ll just put it that way.

“The Breakfast Club” is easily one of my favorite films of all time. I’ve always been drawn to its insight and melodrama with equal measure. I used to own a ratty VHS copy of the film and I’d watch it a couple of times a month. I still consider it to be something of a minor masterpiece. Relive the magic with the trailer below.

SANTA BARBARA – It was a lovely evening on the beach last night as the Biltmore Four Seasons of Santa Barbara and the Santa Barbara Film Festival played host to an evening in honor of actor Michael Douglas. Douglas was on hand for the sixth annual presentation of the Kirk Douglas Award for Excellence in Film.

“In my opinion, this event tonight is the pinnacle of the Santa Barbara Film Festival’s 27 years,” festival director Roger Durling said before introducing Kirk Douglas to present the award. “It’s definitely the highlight of my tenure.”

The elder Douglas gave a truly wonderful speech, sharp as a tack, funny, charming, just wonderful. “I was walking down Sunset Boulevard and a young lady ran up to me all out of breath,” he recalled. “She was beautiful. She looked up to me with lovely eyes. I reached back to grab a pen to give her an autograph and she looked up to me and said, ‘Michael Douglas’s father!'”

He told a story of Michael’s younger years as a student at UC Santa Barbara studying to be a lawyer. Suddenly one day Michael came to Kirk and told him he was going to be in a play, which made the legendary actor nervous. “Why aren’t you studying your law books,” he wondered.

He went to see the performance and a giddy Michael asked his father what he thought. But Kirk, who was really happy to have a son interested in law, wanted to dissuade him from this career path however he could. “Michael, you were awful!” But the young man wasn’t deterred. Before long he was set for another play, and the determination wasn’t lost on Kirk. This time, he was honest. “I said, ‘Michael, you were very good.’ And he has been good in everything he has done from that day on.”

He also reflected the moment his son first laid eyes on Catherine Zeta-Jones (also in attendance) at a screening of “The Mask of Zorro.” He recalled Michael’s eyes got real big and he couldn’t wait to meet her. “The first thing he said to her was, ‘I want to be the father of your children,'” he said. “That scared the hell out of her. Now he’s going to play Liberace and Matt Damon is his lover. I asked Matt how he would feel kissing Michael Douglas on the screen. He said, ‘I will pretend it’s Catherine Zeta-Jones.'”

And in introducing his son for the award presentation, he commented, “The Santa Barbara Film Festival has decided to give you the Kirk Douglas Award for Excellence in Film, and I am here to present it to you, my favorite actor, Kirk… Wait a minute. You think I made a mistake. His name is Michael K. Douglas. What the hell do you think the ‘K’ stands for?”

In accepting the honor, the younger Douglas quipped, “I gather this is the sixth time” the Kirk Douglas Award has been presented. “That just shows there’s no nepotism involved in this. I know this is an award for excellence in film, but I do think coming from you we should talk about quality of life, because so much has been said about an extraordinary career, a tremendous number of 90-plus pictures in producing, breaking the blacklist and all of these incredible qualities. At this point in my career as an actor I have a deep, deep appreciation for what you’ve accomplished. But for me, your third act is quite extraordinary. For somebody at 70 years old to have a helicopter crash, followed by a pacemaker, followed by a stroke, followed by having double knee replacement at 88, and at the same time writing 10 books, doing a one-man show and writing poetry to your wife while she’s in the bath, I’m really proud of you.”

The actor said he was honored to receive an award from someone he admires in a town he loves. He remembered flipping through brochures long ago and trying to decide on a college, and he was stopped by something that said, “Campus by the sea.” There was a guy with a surfboard and a pair of girls in two-piece bathing suits. “This was 1963,” he said. “You did not see a two-piece bathing suit around! There was nothing but army barracks here, but what it did have was three girls to every boy.”

At UCSB, Michael met Danny DeVito, who was on hand to pay tribute to his friend of nearly 50 years. Annette Bening was also in attendance to introduce a clip from “The American President.” She was just here last year to accept the festival’s American Riviera Award following her Oscar-nominated work in “The Kids Are All Right.” Others in attendance included Christopher Lloyd, Dennis Miller, Rhea Perlman, Bo Derek, Ivan Reitman and Andrew Davis.

Seven years ago Durling reached out to Kirk Douglas through a mutual friend at a time when the festival was in a precarious financial situation, hoping the legend would name the award and show up to present it each year. Now the festival is stable and strong and has grown in significance and prestige largely due to Douglas’s commitment. “Some people know Kirk Douglas as Spartacus, but for me, he’s the greatest mensch I’ve ever known,” Durling said.

Past recipients of the award include John Travolta, Ed Harris, Harrison Ford and Quentin Tarantino. Douglas himself received the introductory honor in 2006. I’ve been skipping this event every year — call it laziness, fatigue, a strong desire to NOT get dressed up for a black tie affair. But this was certainly a good year to go. A wonderful evening and a touching moment.

The Santa Barbara Film Festival kicks off on January 26th, 2012 and runs through February 5th. I will once again be on hand this year reporting from the various tributes and awards presentations, the recipients of which will begin to be announced in the coming weeks.

I’ve included audio of the award presentation below. First you’ll hear Roger Durling, followed by Kirk Douglas and finally Michael Douglas accepting his honor.

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.

Anne is back from the New York Film Festival today, where she saw a handful of films, including two key premieres. That dominates the bulk of today’s podcast so let’s take a look at what’s on the docket today…

We kick of discussion this week by digging in on Simon Curtis’s “My Week with Marilyn,” which premiered at New York fest last weekend and screening simultaneously for press here in Los Angeles.

This, by the way, unexpectedly leads to a discussion on how films are viewed instantly by awards press. I argue strongly that awards are truly not in my mind while watching a movie and don’t really start to cross my mind until I reflect on the work.

Sticking with New York fest, Anne was also one of the lucky few to get that early peek at Martin Scorsese’s “Hugo.” Did the master nail it? Is it an awards season player? We defer to Anne on that.

And that takes up a lot of time, so next up is reader questions. We address queries ranging from our personal favorite performances of the year, Carey Mulligan’s Oscar chances for “Shame” and Tilda Swinton’s now-yearly Oscar consideration.

Have a listen to the new podcast below with a Monroe standard 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.

Boy is there nothing out there. It’s quiet. Really quiet. Today’s round-up was a scraping the barrel kind of thing. Yikes. The media blitz for “Martha Marcy May Marlene” is really picking up steam, though, as the film is set for release next week. I’ll be chatting with some of the talent today and look forward to it. It’s still one of the most accomplished films of the year, with a stellar performance from Elizabeth Olsen — one of the great screen debuts. Steven Zeitchik recently sat down with the ingenue. [Los Angeles Times]

Let’s see what else is going on in the Oscarweb today…

Variety honors Pixar honcho John Lasseter. [Variety]

Magnolia Pictures is circling around Fernando Meirelles’s “360.” [Deadline]

Eight documentary shorts make the Academy’s shortlist. [Oscars.org]

Remember that lawsuit against “The Hurt Locker?” Well, it’s been thrown out. [HitFix]

Gendy Alimurung chats with “Texas Killing Fields” director Ami Canaan Mann. [LA Weekly]

Steve Pond is banking on a Best Picture line-up of seven nominees. [The Odds]

Jen Yamato talks to Craig Brewer about how his “Footloose” remake is like “Tarzan” and “Purple Rain.” [Movieline]

Christopher Nolan talks “Star Wars” in the documentary “These Amazing Shadows.” [/Film]

Greg Ellwood talks to “The Skin I Live In” stars Antonio Banderas and Elena Anaya. [Awards Campaign]

If you’ve not yet heard of Steve McQueen’s “Shame,” chances are you’ve been asleep through the entire fall festival season. The “Hunger” director’s sophomore feature was the talk of Venice, where it won a no-brainer Best Actor award for Michael Fassbender, and maintained that buzz through Toronto — where the sexually explicit moral drama was rather adventurously picked up by Fox Searchlight. If any studio can get Fassbender’s startling performance into the Oscar race, Searchlight can — the challenge lies in getting conservative actors’ branch voters to watch this severe, presumably NC-17-rated film. (If you ask me, Carey Mulligan deserves equal attention for a career-high turn.) As you know from my Venice review, and Kris’ Telluride reaction, we’re both fully on board.

“Shame” has its homeland premiere tonight at the BFI London Film Festival; to coincide with that, The Guardian just unveiled the first trailer, which gives a pretty accurate impression of the film’s overwhelming sensory qualities. Check it out after the jump.

Hey, remember “Nowhere in Africa?” Sure you do. The Caroline Link movie about Jewish WWII refugees in Kenya? Not ringing any bells? Oh. Well, what about “The Counterfeiters?” The Nazi banknote forgery film. Yeah, you know the one – though perhaps you had to think a moment. Never mind. Let”s move on to “Departures.” Everyone loves that one. The Japanese one about the cello-playing mortician… what, you never saw it? Whatever.

Many of you might remember, perhaps more clearly than you do the film themselves, that these titles all won Oscars in the past decade for Best Foreign Language Film. I suspect fewer of you will remember feeling that they were the finest non-English films of their respective years – a position that can”t have gained many subscribers in the intervening years, either. They”re hardly freak examples: from “Mediterraneo” to “Tsotsi,” from “To Begin Again” to “Character,” the 55-title list of winners in the category (plus a few special award winners from pre-competition days) is littered with films that few audiences or cinephiles really care about these days… or ever did. If the Best Picture award somehow confers a lasting patina of memory upon most of its winners, well-received or otherwise, its foreign-language counterparts offers no such insurance.

Back in February, for the first time in several years, the Academy handed the award to a comparatively renowned director, Susanne Bier. That, though, hardly futureproofs the winning film, “In a Better World” – a heavy-handed child”s-eye tract some way off her best work, that was widely shrugged off by critics and audiences when it hit US theatres a few weeks after its triumph.

No doubt the Oscar is a box-office selling point for these films, but that”s largely because most recent winners have had low profiles before hitting big with the Academy: it”s worth noting that none of the last three winners premiered at a major competitive festival. (Interestingly, Cannes is the festival most frequently monitored by Oscar-watchers for fodder in the category – but you have to go back to 2003″s “The Barbarian Invasions” to find a winner that played the Croisette.)

We scarcely need to recap the reasons why the category is so often resistant to major international titles: they begin with the trust placed in national committees to pick, pageant-style, a single film to represent an entire film industry, and end with the conservative taste of the famously age-skewed votership. The Academy”s attempted partial fixes to the system – including those that warmed the chilly hearts of many a critic when “Dogtooth” somehow snuck onto the nominee list this year – are appreciated, but the category can never pretend to be authoritative or even representative of what”s going on in world cinema.

This year, however, the stage has been set for the Academy to make more relevant choices than usual – if, of course, they rise to the occasion. Looking down the final list of 63 official submissions for the award, announced earlier today, it”s striking how many of the films on it already come with sizeable critical fanbases: “A Separation,” “Le Havre,” “Miss Bala,” “Pina,” “Attenberg,” “The Turin Horse,” “Once Upon a Time in Anatolia” and several others all attracted acclaim on the critical circuit, and lend the longlist some cred.

Flare-ups over countries blatantly choosing the wrong film were fewer than usual this year: only Russia sparked outright controversy by cosying up to Nikita Mikhalkov and his roundly panned “Burnt by the Sun” sequel. (They could instead have gone with one of the year”s best films, Andrei Zyvagintsev”s Cannes-lauded “Elena,” but spilt milk and all that.)

Some of those titles you can dismiss with some confidence. Even with the executive committee”s most adventurous efforts, it”s hard to imagine the general voters warming to “The Turin Horse,” Béla Tarr”s impressive but colossally grim ode to death and boiled potatoes. And having successfully rallied for “Dogtooth” last year, it”s unlikely the committee will push their luck by forcing in a second consecutive Greek provocation under the Lanthimos label – so good luck, “Attenberg.” Every year, the list is never short of nice-try-but-as-if hopefuls from the most rarefied corners of the festival circuit: I have a place in my heart for countries who play the dangerous game rather than the cynically tactical one.

But the Academy”s hand may be forced this year by the number of high-class contenders entering the race with palpable festival buzz. It”s hard to remember the last time a single film so quickly assumed frontrunner status in this race, and harder still to recall when it was a film as searing and sophisticated and unsentimental as Asghar Farhadi”s “A Separation,” but the volume of support for this one makes it very difficult for the Academy to ignore – it should be sufficiently accessible and rich with feeling to appeal to the general voters, but the executive committee will be obliged to step in if it inexplicably misses the mark with them. (One reason it might is discussed in an excellent piece by Australian blogger Glenn Dunks: with the award being one for the country rather than the filmmaker, might some voters feel reluctant to reward Iran at a time when the country couldn”t be less conducive to artistic freedom?)

Less sure is the fate of “Miss Bala,” a dynamite art-thriller with considerable crossover appeal that could either excite the Academy sufficiently for them to drop their usual stylistic hang-ups (as they did for Mexico”s “Amores Perros” a decade ago) or leave them numb. The backing of a major studio brand, in this case Fox, is such a rarity in this race that it”s hard to tell if it could work for the film or against it. (Could more perverse voters think it too mainstream?)

Wim Wenders”s “Pina,” landing in the race with a healthy combination of festival buzz, European box office and an esteemed veteran director, but it”s plainly the novelty wild card of the race: voters and/or committee members might think it cool to have a landmark 3D dance film in the running, or they might think it doesn”t belong altogether. “Le Havre” seems like it can”t miss – it”s warm, fuzzy, features kids and contemporary social issues and comes from a director they”ve nominated before – but we all assumed it would charm the Cannes jury too.

As any practised Oscar-watcher knows, there are no certainties at any stage when it comes to this most slippery of categories – which one suspects might be a reputation this section of Academy actively cultivates to an extent. Voters don”t like to feel pressured into voting for the “right” film by a vocal critical majority, particularly if it”s one they respect more than they like; as I”ve said before, they vastly prefer championing something they discovered (or have craftily been allowed to feel they discovered) themselves.

That”s how, for all the head-scratching by many observers, “Departures” upended “The Class” and “Waltz With Bashir”; that”s how “The Secret in Their Eyes” trumped “The White Ribbon” and “A Prophet”; that”s why, for all the buzz in its favour right now, I wouldn”t be surprised to see “A Separation” trampled by a less acclaimed pretender; Toronto audience favourite “Where Do We Go Now?” and Agnieszka Holland”s baity Holocaust drama “In Darkness” are currently being primed for that position, but it could just as easily be one of the 50-odd films we haven”t yet clocked – oh, let”s say Canada”s “Monsieur Lazhar.” We”re in a position to have the most nourishing winner in this addled category since 1999″s “All About My Mother,” but perhaps the best way to encourage this outcome is to keep quiet about it.

[Updated Oscar predictions here.]

I haven’t yet seen British artist Tacita Dean’s installation, “Film,” at London’s Tate Modern — in which she both celebrates and mourns the medium of celluloid, in the face of the overwhelming dominance of digital filmmaking. It opened yesterday and has received considerable acclaim even from non-anoraks, saying she makes an emphatic case for the eternal superiority of outmoded 35mm.

She certainly has some lofty names in her corner, as the book accompanying the exhibition includes testimonies from such names as Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg. It might strike some as a little rich that they’re taking part in such a nostalgic project in the very year that both directors are venturing into unfamiliar technical territory — 3D for Scorsese in “Hugo,” 3D and motion-capture for Spielberg in “The Adventures of Tintin” — that threatens the original medium’s survival, but it’s possible to an advocate for both preservation and progress. 

Here’s Scorsese’s tribute to the purity of celluloid, as relayed in The Guardian: 

“Those incredible recreations of [Manhattan street] Mulberry Bend in [DW Griffith’s] The Musketeers of Pig Alley, and of turn-of-the-century San Francisco in [Erich von Stroheim’s] Greed, as delicately textured and rendered as the first photographs. The glistening close-up that introduces Anna May Wong in Shanghai Express: the richest and most brilliant blacks and whites, greys and silvers – even the air feels alive. Gene Tierney in her white robe and dark glasses and red lipstick, in the polished wooden boat on the turquoise water with the green pines behind her, in Leave Her to Heaven. Ava Gardner – the thick dark hair, the skin like perfect porcelain – in a gold dress under an emerald cape against a midnight blue sky in Pandora and the Flying Dutchman.

The cinema began with a passionate, physical relationship between celluloid and the artists and craftsmen and technicians who handled it, manipulated it, and came to know it the way a lover comes to know every inch of the body of the beloved. No matter where the cinema goes, we cannot afford to lose sight of its beginnings.”

Of course, according to those who saw the incomplete version of Scorsese’s “Hugo” at the New York Film Festival recently, those beginnings still seem to be very much on the director’s mind: though I’ve been glossing over specifics to conserve my own enjoyment of the eventual finished film, I’ve lost count of the number of reviews and reactions referring to the film’s last half as a hi-tech valentine to the origins of cinema, keenly advocating its preservation. Between this and “The Artist,” audiences may start feeling a little hectored by cinema nostalgists before the holidays are out.

(I’ll be seeing “The Adventures of Tintin,” by the way, on Sunday. Fingers crossed.)

I began Tech Support this season by analyzing two of the categories that award disciplines which can be explained relatively easily – Best Visual Effects and Best Cinematography. This week’s field isn’t so easily reductive, but I always give it a try for new readers.

The sound editing Oscar recognizes achievements probably better reflected in its previous names – Best Sound Effects Editing and Best Sound Effects. In essence, the category rewards the creation of artificial sounds, which are necessary for the movie”s soundtrack. It differs from sound mixing, which is the weaving and integration of all sound elements – dialogue, music, effects and production audio – into one coherent soundtrack.

Traditionally, fairly similar films are nominated here as in the sound mixing category (last year”s 2/5 matchup aside): loud films, war films, blockbusters, Best Picture contenders with action, etc. That said, films in which most of the soundscape is artificially created do tend to do better here than in the mixing field, such as animated titles and, for instance, last year’s nominee in the field, “TRON Legacy.”

The category does have a few names who tend to pop up repeatedly (some of whom do double duty as mixers), though new nominees are welcomed almost every year. This has been more noticeable since the size of the category expanded five years ago from three to five nominees.

In my mind, the best bet for a nod this year, even if it is sight-unseen, would have to be Steven Spielberg”s “War Horse.” In addition to the war and horse sounds, the film looks like it will be in contention for Best Picture and many of the other crafts categories as well. The fact that Richard Hymns is a three-time Oscar winner for Spielberg movies (“Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade,” “Jurassic Park” and “Saving Private Ryan”) only helps its chances.

The fact of the matter is that “War Horse” is not the only Spielberg effort I would expect to be a contender in this category, though. The animated/performance capture “The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn” also presents an opportunity for sound effects editors to demonstrate their skills. While supervising sound editor Chris Ward has not been nominated before, I nevertheless strongly suspect this will be a contender.

“Tintin” is not the only animated endeavor I would keep my eyes on. “Rango” was not only a reasonable hit for an animated film, it also brought in many sounds of the Old West, something the sound branch looks favorably on from time to time. Addison Teague was nominated in this category last year for “TRON Legacy” and was also on the sound team for “Avatar.”

Given Pixar”s extraordinary track record in this category over the past decade, it may appear very unwise to bet against “Cars 2.”  Tom Myers has received three straight nominations here, for “WALL-E,” “Up” and “Toy Story 3.”  Even so, I am skeptical about this film”s chances. Its predecessor in the series is the only Pixar film in the past decade not to score a nomination here. While that could be considered a fluke, it”s worth remembering that this film underwhelmed in the eyes of almost everyone. Is it in contention? Absolutely. But I”m not sold on it.

Looking back on June releases, “Super 8” was heavily reliant on sound effects – from the train crash to the alien creature to the eerie sounds that build the mood. I have no idea if it will actually survive until year”s end in the mind of the sound branch, but Matthew Wood (a two-time nominee) and Ben Burtt (a two-time winner and legend in the field) would probably be wise to keep Oscar night open on their calendars.

Like its visual effects team, the sound editing crew of “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” will try to return to the game this year despite “Revenge of the Fallen” having missed out on a nomination. I”m not as convinced of its potential in this category as in visual effects, not because of the quality of the work, but also because the category hasn”t expanded since “Revenge of the Fallen.” Even so, any film with a soundtrack like this one must be considered in this category. It was better reviewed than its series predecessor.

It is true that “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” managed to excite a fan base perhaps unlike any other film this summer. Its visual effects are clearly headed into the history books. Could the sound effects of the apes, as well as the more traditional action-based crashes and whatnot, make a first-time nominee out of supervising sound editor Chuck Michael? It”s certainly possible. That said, this could be a “visual effects only” film for the Academy, with more traditional sounds and more seasoned veterans taking the nominations here.

I remained surprised that the “Harry Potter” series has never managed a nomination here. “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” is the last chance to reward the magical sounds and aural elements of J.K. Rowling’s universe. It seems odd that the sound branch would start to notice now. Though it”s not out of the realm of possibility for James Mather to find himself a first-time nominee come the new year.

“Drive” has some very vocal fans, as the cult of Ryan Gosling continues to grow and Albert Brooks may be able to steer his against-type turn towards an Oscar nomination. The film has an interesting soundscape and elements edited together for chase sequences could make the branch perk up a bit. Lon Bender won this award for “Braveheart” and was a surprise nominee five years ago for “Blood Diamond.” That gives it some hope in my eyes.

“Real Steel” is Hugh Jackman”s latest foray into shirtless action. The film was well reviewed and successful enough such that the combination of robots and fights may, just may, result in a nomination when all is said and done. Sometimes lone wolves show up in this category somewhat surprisingly. (“Unstoppable” jumps to mind from last year, as well as the likes of “Space Cowboys,” “Fight Club,” “Face/Off,” “The Fifth Element” and more in recent memory.)

Martin Scorsese”s “Hugo” will attempt to bring us into a fantastical world that will captivate family audiences. Sound effects will doubtless abound and Philip Stockton is in many ways overdue for a first nomination. I”m still not sure this project is in Scorsese”s comfort zone but if it succeeds, I certainly expect a nomination here is quite possible.

I”ll end with another film I”m having difficulty reading: David Fincher”s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” This may well be just a December cash cow. The studio will likely be content with that. But it has the potential to be more depending on how the Academy is feeling. The sound categories would be among its strongest chances in my opinion.

And with those musings ends my third look at a category this year. Next week, we move back into the realm of the visual as we analyze Best Costume Design.

Any thoughts on the Best Sound Editing category? Cut loose with your thoughts in the comments section below.

If you’re not a comic book fan, you nevertheless might still be aware of DC Comics’ massive changing of the tide last month. The publisher revamped its line-up, instituted a re-numbering of 52 titles and made all issues available digitally on day of release, hoping to lure new readers. The move was accompanied by a giant media blitz and, indeed, sales were through the roof all month.

The company’s latest announcement dovetails nicely with what we do here, seeing as David Fincher’s adaptation of Stieg Larsson’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” is primed for a December release and will very much figure into the conversation this awards season. DC has revealed its plans to convert Larsson’s Millennium Trilogy, consisting of “Dragon Tattoo,” “The Girl who Played with Fire” and “The Girl who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest,” to the graphic novel format via its Vertigo imprint.

DC co-publisher Dan DiDio is quoted in the press release:

“The intricate characters and stories Larsson created in the Millennium Trilogy are a perfect match for the graphic novel format, where we can bring Lisbeth Salander to life in entirely new, visually compelling ways. It”s a distinct honor to work on a story that is already so popular with millions of readers around the world.”

And Larsson’s younger brother, Joakim:

“Stieg always liked comics and it will be exciting to see the unforgettable characters he created come to life on the comics page.”

Marvel Comics has seen some success in translating Stephen King’s “The Stand” to graphic novels and on-going series. And Salander makes for a compelling heroine for comics, so this sounds like a cool idea to me. And a smart one. The trilogy has sold more than 60 million books worldwide, 17 million in the US alone. And it isn’t likely to leave the best-seller lists any time soon, certainly not with a hyped-up film on the way.

“Dragon Tattoo” is set for 2012 release from Vertigo, with “Played with Fire” landing in 2013 and “Hornet’s Nest” hitting in 2014.

You snooze you lose. I’ve been meaning to make note of Czech foreign film entry “Alois Nebel” for some time, as it is also an animated film that could figure into the animated feature race. Well Steve Pond has confirmed that the film will be submitted in both categories, though there is still the question of whether the film will be deemed eligible or not due to the use of roto-scoping. If it is, it could help push the number of eligible contenders to 16, which would yield a slate of five nominees this year. [The Odds]

Let’s see what else is going on in the Oscarweb today…

Check out an exclusive clip from the Emily Watson-starrer “Oranges and Sunshine.” [24 Frames]

 With “The Tree of Life” hitting DVD and Blu-ray, Jordana Zakarin chats with star Jessica Chastain about her experience on the film. [Huffington Post]

Leah Rosen sits down with “Martha Marcy May Marlene” star Elizabeth Olsen. [New York Times]

Alexander Payne is looking to put together a massively impressive cast for his film “Nebraska,” including Gene Hackman, who he’ll have to lure out of retirement. [Vulture]

Nathaniel Rogers writes up the year’s breakthrough performers. [The Film Experience]

The Weinstein Company has moved “My Week with Marilyn” back a few weeks to Thanksgiving. [Deadline]

Scott Feinberg talks to “The Skin I Live In” director Pedro Almodovar. [The Race]

David Poland, meanwhile, talks to actors Antonio Banderas and Elena Anaya about the film. [The Hot Blog]

Jeff Wells lets Strand Releasing have it for not having deep pockets to strongly promote one of his favorites, “Tyrannosaur,” and Olivia Colman’s performance therein, for Oscar. [Hollywood Elsewhere]

LONDON – There are precious few good screenplays that begin with the words, “A wise man once said…”. There are fewer still that use this introductory wisdom to undermine their entire metaphorical throughline. Peter Morgan’s script for “360,” a vacuous theoretical spin on “La Ronde” with a parade of loveless characters seemingly linked only by the same globe-trotting interior designer, falls into neither of these elite categories.

Certainly, alarm bells start ringing when the aforementioned line is completed with the instruction, “If there”s a fork in the road, take it” – an epiphany of which “360” is sufficiently proud that it gets repeated at the film”s close. (It”s about circles, you see.) Quite aside from the fact that Morgan and director Fernando Meirelles seem to have their definitions of wise men and fridge magnets confused on this occasion, the fork-in-the-road analogy is a jarring one with which to frame what otherwise purports to be a story of cyclical connectedness-in which sexuality, in particular, is revealed to have concentric consequences, though few of them particularly drastic, for its geographically scattered ensemble players. Can a circular road-such as Vienna”s Ringstraße, none-too-subtly namechecked in the film”s token Schnitzler-tapping Austrian strand-also fork?

If that sounds a pettily literal complaint, it merely scratches the wood-veneer surface of this punishingly glib film”s lack of conviction in its own dimestore philosophy: can we alter our fates at this hypothetical fork, or are they as pre-determined as a carousel route? “360” hedges its bets on both answers, which could be a provocative stance in itself if there were some drama surrounding the motto-shopping. Perhaps it”s telling that Morgan”s greatest screenwriting successes thus far have been in the comfortingly pre-plotted realm of modern history, where the film”s moral and thematic compass is in some part steered by what he and the audience already know and feel on the subject; place him in fiction, as in last year”s clueless supernatural melodrama “Hereafter,” and his worldview apparently turns to jelly.

Like that ill-fated Clint Eastwood film, “360” chases the illusion of dramatic heft by splintering what it has across several threadbare narratives, the links between them as casually formed as those of a daisy chain: Morgan is seemingly in thrall to the recent work of Guillermo Arriaga, whose most pat work is still more completely realized than this. 

Jude Law”s travelling businessman chickens out of an appointment with a suspiciously elderly-looking Slovakian hooker (Lucia Sipasova), while back in London, his magazine-stylist wife (Rachel Weisz, who presumably took this thankless role as a favor to the director who steered her to an Oscar six years ago) breaks off an affair with a dishy Brazilian photographer (Juliano Cazarre). The latter”s ex-girlfriend (Maria Flore) flies back to the US, where she inexplicably hooks up with Ben Foster”s grubby, reformed sex offender at the airport and befriends Anthony Hopkins”s bereaved alcoholic codger. He vaguely inspires a fellow attendee at an AA meeting, a neglected Russian dental hygienist (Dinara Drukarova), to separate from her husband, who”s neatly over in Vienna chatting up the Slovakian hooker”s virtuous sister – you get the idea.

It”s a small, small world, and smaller still when its inhabitants are this reactive and colorless, required to feel precisely one emotion per scene: whichever one will at that point most effectively serve the film”s thin thesis that sex drives most of our major life decisions (particularly, in these enlightened times of ours, if you”re a woman).

Morgan”s lack of personal investment in these detail-free board-game characters is palpable: Law”s character is actually described in the course of the film as “an esteemed company director with a wedding ring on his finger,” while entire backstories are efficiently condensed with such helpful dialogue pointers as “She has heart” and “You look so happy.” Their strands may physically coalesce, but they remain on separate floors in terms of subtext: where great multi-narrative films gain in resonance what they do in knottiness, these anecdotal snapshots succeed only in thematically drowning each other out.

If Morgan (who also enjoys a brief, oily cameo) is at sea here, Meirelles is merely floating on the surface: it”s hard to believe the showily vital director of “City of God” is even capable of the wholly anonymous gloss he lacquers over the material here, a substance sufficiently gloopy to thwart even actors as routinely interesting as Foster, whose atonal scuzziness makes him by default the film”s most compelling presence. Gifted cinematographer Adriano Goldman (stepping down from the highs of “Jane Eyre”) is sufficiently exasperated by the script”s dogged pursuit of circle metaphors to shoot everything in rigid verticals, as the soundtrack burbles with the Starbucks jazz you get from pressing the Casio key marked “tasteful sexuality.” Those words would appear to be the entire MO of “360,” a dull, circular sigh of a film hesitating at the fork in the road between psychological study and sexual fantasy-and finally taking neither.

The word on Rodrigo Garcia’s “Albert Nobbs” started at Telluride a little over a month ago. At the time I noted that Glenn Close’s 30-year labor of love “never really breaks free of its stage roots,” but that the actress was fantastic in the titular role. I also spoke with her about her long journey with the material at the fest. I expect the acting branch — should they see the film, which is always difficult with smaller films this time of year — will respond well to her work, but beyond that, it’ll be a dicey play for other elements to work Oscar magic, I think.

Check out the new trailer via Yahoo! Movies below.