The Academy today dropped via press release its annual list of rule clarifications and changes regarding campaigning procedures, but while most are acknowledging the adjustments to post-nominations events and gatherings (like, say, blatant campaigning via private parties with AMPAS guest lists hosted for contending talent — no longer permitted), my colleague Greg Ellwood has drilled down and noted probably the biggest bombshell of all in the announcement.

Before the nominations are revealed, it looks to be open season.

Greg quotes from the press release as follows: “Prior to the nominations announcement (January 24, 2012), there are no restrictions on screening events to which Academy members may be invited. These events may include the live participation of individuals involved with the film (Q&A panel discussions, etc.) as well as receptions with food and beverage.”

What he surmises from this is that studios “can clearly go after just Academy voters if they want and, moreover, can drop having to participate in third party screening series such as the Variety or Envelope staples.” This all may seem like the kind of ink you gloss over while following an Oscar race, but these changes could — and likely will — substantially impact the season.

Greg notes that, if a studio is willing to spend the money, the sky is the limit on booking pre-nominations screenings. And so I’m suddenly reminded of “Moneyball”: poor teams faced with the pocket book reality of rich teams.

Also bolstered here is the desire for Academy members to see films in a theatrical setting, rather than lazily throwing in their screeners around the holidays while the turkey needs to be checked every hour or grandchildren are darting around demanding attention. The broadening of pre-nominations screening allowance, Greg argues, provides more opportunity for members to see films in a theater, as well as added incentive for them to attend, since there are no restrictions on talent appearing for Q&As at these events. And who doesn’t want to come see George Clooney flash that smile a thousand times while stumping for “The Descendants?”

All of this gives us a nice opportunity, by the way, to indicate the differences in coverage between Greg’s Awards Campaign blog and our neck of the woods here, now that we’re both under the HitFix banner. I’ve been asked about this a few times since the move, so allow me to illustrate.

Greg is well-versed in the cutthroat world of film publicity, having “survived working for two major studios,” as his bio points out, and having done his time on Oscar campaigns over the years. He tends, therefore, to cover the season from a campaign and business perspective, hence the name of his space. We cover that here to an extent, but our focus is more often on season analysis and prognostication, with a healthy dose of film opinion and Oscar history to boot. The synergy of the two will make HitFix a dynamite outlet for awards season coverage, I have no doubt, but hopefully that clears up the perspectives we will separately take.

Meanwhile, I imagine it’s only a matter of time before Oscar campaign strategists finally key into the spoils today’s press release have left for them.

Back in the summer I called the upcoming Oscar season, in all likelihood, “The Year of The Beard.” More than any other year I can recall, 2011 seems to be slathered with the presence and influence of director Steven Spielberg. His esteemed canon is revered in Greg Mottola’s “Paul.” It’s outright held aloft for reverential worship in “Super 8.” Meanwhile, he’s visible as executive producer on two summer blockbusters, Jon Favreau’s “Cowboys & Aliens” and Michael Bay’s mammoth “Transformers: Dark of the Moon.” He pops up in television via participating in shows like “Falling Skies” and “Terra Nova.”

Oh yeah…and he has two films coming out in December: the World War I drama “War Horse” and the animated Peter Jackson collaboration “The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn.” It’s fair to say the guy is pretty much in your face this season.

The question is, will that feed a long, significant march to Oscar night? “War Horse” certainly seems to tick off plenty of Academy boxes. And I’m of the mind that, even though it seems too easy to call it thus, the film will be our big player this year. Anything can happen, naturally. The film could be a turd. But it’s only assisted by the fact that, early in the season yet, nothing has a stranglehold on things.

Well, Spielberg will get an added boost from the Producers Guild of America (PGA) in all of this. The organization has chosen him as the recipient of this year’s David O. Selznick Award, and with his prolific stature as of late, it seems like the perfect call to me. And on cue, that word pops up in today’s press release.

“As one of the most prolific filmmakers of all time, Steven’s continued genius, imagination and fearlessness in the world of feature film entertainment is unmatched in this industry,” Producers Guild Awards co-chairs Paula Wagner and Michael Manheim state therein. “Steven has produced some of the most iconic films in the history of cinema and we have no doubt he will continue to bring thrilling adventures, emotionally moving storylines, thought provoking characters and cult classics to audiences across the globe. We’re extremely proud to recognize Steven’s contributions to the producing craft as well as the entire film industry with the David O. Selznick honor.”

In the release, Spielberg took the expected opportunity to pay tribute to the award’s namesake. “David O. Selznick is a true legend in the producing field,” he says, “and I am tremendously honored to be associated with his name and to join the company of so many distinguished filmmakers who have received this accolade. I am extremely grateful to the Producers Guild.”

Also worth pointing out is that this year is the 30th anniversary of perhaps the most Spielberg=y Spielberg film of all, “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” Meanwhile, there has also been a big influx in Spielberg cinema making its way to Blu-ray. We got “Minority Report” last year, “The Color Purple” and “A.I.: Artificial Intelligence” earlier this year, and the “Jurassic Park” trilogy is on its way. “Jaws” won’t be far behind.

Last year’s recipient was the similarly prolific Scott Rudin, who had the one-two punch of “The Social Network” and “True Grit” on the awards circuit. Will Spielberg find better luck in the Best Picture category than Rudin did last year? Time will tell.

You”ve got to feel for Nadine Labaki. For months ahead of the Toronto Film Festival, industry pundits have been eyeing up the fest”s lone mentionable prize-the Audience Award-as some kind of mystical key with the power to unlock the opaque maze of this year”s Best Picture Oscar race; a maze, thus far, with no appreciable entry or exit points.

While allowing for the general excitability of industry pundits, recent Toronto outcomes have justified such dependency: with the last three Audience Awards having gone to “The King”s Speech,” “Precious” and “Slumdog Millionaire,” there was reason enough to question whether AMPAS had somehow bought up the festival”s entire ticket count.

Determined by averages rather than argument, audience awards are traditionally the ugly sisters of fest honors: “Who cares what the audience likes?,” a publicist once asked me. “Audiences rate Martin Lawrence too.” Yet the Toronto crowd”s eerie middlebrow prescience in recent years has elevated that otherwise meaningless prize to a point where it matters to the Oscar race more than any far more prestigious juried festival trophy. What use is a Palme d”Or, one might ask, if the film doesn”t play with the Canucks? So you can”t blame Oscar-watchers-who enjoy uncertainty only as long as we don”t risk looking like dolts-for waiting on a sanctioned frontrunner in this fashion. I confess I voiced a bet as early as May on “The Artist” taking the award en route to a Best Picture lead; such are the dense yet trivial hypotheses this game forces us into.

All of which is a roundabout way of saying that poor Labaki could be forgiven for thinking she had it made when her latest film emerged as the surprise Audience Award champ last week. Ta-ta, “The Artist.” Adios, “The Descendants.” It was nice knowing y”all. Your new Best Picture frontrunner, ladies and gentlemen, is “Where Do We Go Now?,” a Lebanese feminist comedy with musical elements, about a group of local women negotiating peace between warring Christian and Muslim factions in their village. It”s inspiring! It”s important! It”s Lebanese! Everything Academy voters love, obviously, and I”m astonished that nobody clocked it as a Best Picture heavy until now. The film premiered four months ago at Cannes, for Chrissakes. How were we caught napping like this?

So the usual logic would dictate, at least. So imagine how crestfallen Labaki – a fine filmmaker whose previous feature “Caramel” already had me anticipating her latest, with or without festival hardware – must have felt when, on cruising the Oscar blogs the morning after her Toronto coup, “Where Do We Go Now?” had penetrated not a single prognosticator”s Best Picture sheet. So much expectation built around a single award, and all it takes is a few subtitles (coupled with a few cries of “Huh?!”) to bring us right back where we started. Where do we go now, indeed.

The moral of this admittedly rather disingenuous little fable is that the festival circuit is less transparent in its creation and elevation of hits than we”d like to believe. For every seemingly out-of-nowhere sleeper that captures festivalgoers” imaginations before going on to broader critical, commercial and awards success, there”s a certain amount of stage management behind it – or, in many cases, an existing festival footprint that lends a certain level of pre-ordainment to the film.

“The Artist” could charm audiences every bit as effectively as it has at every festival it”s played since the spring, but would we be talking about it as an Oscar player if Thierry Fremaux hadn”t promoted it to the Cannes Competition strand at the last minute? “A Separation” has widely been hailed as one of the breakout stories of the Telluride-Toronto phase-it”s unenviably become many pundits” default Best Foreign Language Film pick, while I”ve ventured a Best Original Screenplay prediction in my latest picks (which will be live when we figure out our contenders/predictions scenario)-but that progress was enabled by its quiet but emphatic victory at February”s Berlinale, a festival few American journalists pay much mind, and even fewer attend.

Spare a thought for Berlin fest director Dieter Kosslick: after years of indifferently received competition films, he lands a winner that may well outdo those from Cannes and Venice for universal critical acclaim, and still gets only a partial credit. Venice head Marco Mueller can buy him a commiseratory drink – how many people remember that “The Hurt Locker””s long, protracted journey to the Oscar podium began at the Lido a year and a half before Oscar night?

And that”s not counting festival hits that come with built-in brand appeal: I was amused to read one columnist describing Alexander Payne”s well-received family drama “The Descendants” as one of the “discoveries” of Toronto. How can you “discover” an Alexander Payne film when it comes served on a bed of familiar auteur cachet and great expectations?

A festival stamp, even without attached awards, is a nice badge of honor for such pre-advantaged films, but it”s not mandatory: eyebrows are sometimes raised when a big-name autumn title with apparent high-end adult appeal chooses to bypass the festival circuit entirely, but recent Oscar successes for Clint Eastwood (“Million Dollar Baby”) and Martin Scorsese (“The Departed”) prove that festival training wheels aren”t a prerequisite for studios confident that their film has the goods. (Jason Reitman is planning a similar tack with “Young Adult,” perhaps burned by accusations that Oscar underperformer “Up in the Air” overplayed its festival-hit hand.)

In the past decade, only half the eventual Best Picture winners made their first appearance at a festival – three of them at Toronto, with one apiece for Cannes and Venice – and all five of them were the kind of independent productions Academy voters have obviously sympathized with of late. The other five (including, in addition to the aforementioned Scorsese and Eastwood films, “A Beautiful Mind,” “Chicago” and “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King”) are the kind of mainstream-oriented, often star-driven entertainments AMPAS used to habitually favor – and that the recent, partially reversed move to ten Best Picture nominees seemed designed to encourage once more.

This observation says little that isn”t already obvious: that smaller films need festival exposure more than bigger ones, that Oscar inclinations switch over relatively narrow time brackets and that, whatever its origins, the film has to capture voters” imaginations, not just tick their boxes. All the same, it”s tempting to contemplate whether the relative scarcity of festival-anointed Best Picture frontrunners this year forecast another straight-to-theaters studio winner. “The Help,” anyone?

See, already I”m engaging in the kind of tortuously overthought punditry that opens the floor for just about any outcome. Welcome to The Long Shot, where I”ll try to alternately excavate, dismiss and revive each one of them in the five months leading to Oscar night. Don”t take your eye off the prize just yet, Ms. Labaki.

Bennett Miller’s “Moneyball” lands in theaters nationwide this Friday. (Check out our interview with the director here.) On newsstands today, though, the film gets a healthy boost by having its star, Brad Pitt, grace the cover of Sports Illustrated magazine.

It’s rare for a non-sports figure to be featured on the magazine. After all, it’s kind of a big deal for an athlete to finally make it to such an echelon, so to have a celeb like Pitt just waltz onto the gloss, well, I imagine it might be a bit irritating for some. But this could turn into a trend for sports films.

Just last year, “The Fighter” stars Mark Wahlberg and Christian Bale turned heads when they were featured (rather goofily, I might add — it would have been cooler if they were in character) on the cover of the magazine. It was a shrewd move for Paramount Pictures and certainly played a hand in raising awareness for the film. So kudos to Sony for nailing this down. It kind of seems like a no-brainer, really.

Continue reading to see the full cover, plus some comments from Pitt featured in the issue.

Via Inside Sports Illustrated:

Pitt”s background (or lack thereof) in baseball: “It”s shameful how little I know about baseball…I”m amazed they let me do this movie…Baseball and I didn”t get along that well. I wrestled one year [in high school]. I dove one year. Everything but baseball.”

How Pitt acquitted himself to his role as a baseball lifer: “I”m an Oklahoma-Missouri boy, so I”m no stranger to a bit of dip. We start early with that, so really, I was just revisiting my roots.”

What Pitt was initially drawn to about the story: “I”m a sucker for the underdog story.”

The end goal of the film: “What we were trying to do is tell an unconventional story in the Trojan horse of a conventional baseball movie.”

The comparisons Pitt makes to the movie and three of his favorite 1970s films (“The French Connection,” “One Flew Over the Cuckoo”s Nest” and “All the President”s Men”): “In scripts today, someone has a big epiphany, learns a lesson, then comes out the other side different. In these older films I”m talking about, the beast at the end of the movie was the same beast in the beginning of the movie. What changed was the world around them, by just a couple of degrees. Nothing monumental. I think that”s true about us. We fine?tune ourselves, but big change is not real.”

There are also interviews with Bennett Miller and co-star Jonah Hill in the issue, as well as source material author Michael Lewis and, of course, Oakland A’s General Manager Billy Beane, who Pitt portrays in the film.

Here’s the cover:

I got home last night from Cameron Crowe’s rock documentary “Pearl Jam Twenty” jazzed by what I had just seen. To me, it was obviously an intimate perspective from the inside (therefore inherently reverential), but the treat was the access, the footage, the chance to assemble two decades of material into a film that comes away somewhat objective because it’s built from on-the-record material.

And yet, when I pulled up the few reviews available from the film’s Toronto Film Festival bow, I was met with a wave of sighing and belly-aching over what many critics, clearly unimpressed by the band to begin with, saw as subjective fandom and vacant worship. Even those with positive takes seemed too careful to let their thoughts go to print without touching on this. Well, respectfully, I think they missed it.

This is a movie split in two, really. And, consciously or not, that structure is nicely reflective of the subject. Pearl Jam is a band born from tragedy. It’s a collective risen from the ashes of Seattle post-glam titans of their scene, Mother Love Bone. The tragic death of that band’s front man, Andy Wood, combined with San Diego surfing crooner Eddie Vedder’s own sense of loss regarding the “family friend” he didn’t know was actually his father until he had passed, formed “the psychic pain that bonded the band,” as my colleague Melinda Newman puts it in her review.

That synergy made for almost instantaneous success. Six days after getting together, they were playing their first show — and killing it. The meteoric rise is the most exhilarating element of the film, capturing rather well the dizzying excitement and the “drug” of live performance (a drug so powerful it put them off of concept music videos in the beginning.)

Post-“Jeremy,” as the band found new life touring with Neil Young, desperate for freshness amid a “grunge” scene that had become flavor of the month, the film starts to shift. The story slows down as Vedder becomes the driving creative force behind the band more so than guitarist Stone Gossard. They fought Ticketmaster and lost, but gained respect from a new core of fans. The tragedy of Denmark”s Roskilde Festival in 2000 was their personal turning point. The natural maturation of the men finds its way into the film here, and I appreciate it for that. But I really think the first half is special for its sheer burst of electricity and mimicry of the head trip that is rock star success.

This coming Saturday, by the way, is “Nevermind Day,” as I’ve been calling it. September 24, 1991 was the release date of Nirvana’s “Nevermind” album. Surviving members Krist Novoselic and Dave Grohl recently talked about the approaching anniversary and I noticed Sirius Satellite Radio’s aptly named Lithium network has been upping the Nirvana airplay the last few days. And that band, too, is getting the memory lane treatment this year.

Next Tuesday, a deluxe edition of the album will hit stores, accompanied by a first-ever DVD/Blu-ray release of Nirvana’s 1991 Halloween show from the Paramount Theatre in Seattle. The concert — which was immortalized in the “Lithium” music video — will first air on VH1 Classic Friday, September 23 at 11pm ET. You can bet I’ll be glued to the tube for that and first in line for the spoils on the 27th. I just listened to my old bootleg of it again yesterday. So. Good.

See, I grew up during this stuff. So maybe it’s just my thing. Add it all to Soundgarden getting back together this year (and putting on a show at The Forum in July that is literally the best I’ve ever seen, one that I drove back to Los Angeles for in the middle of Comic-Con) and you have a perfect storm for fans of this music. But to circle back to “Pearl Jam Twenty,” I respect the movie for being a document, and I respect Crowe for eschewing chilly distance in favor of understanding that the friendship and intimacy was a virtue for the material.

(The band also pops up in Jonathan Levine’s Seattle-set “50/50,” by the way, as “Yellow Ledbetter” plays over the closing credits.)

Following yesterday’s one-day theatrical engagement in select cities around the world, “Pearl Jam Twenty” will open in select markets this Friday, September 23. It will be available On Demand from, well, “Nevermind Day” this Saturday, it airs as part of PBS’s “American Masters” series on October 21 and it hits DVD/Blu-ray four days later. Here are some details on the soon-to-be-released soundtrack.

Any favorite Pearl Jam or Nirvana tracks out there? I’ve always been a “Black”/”Yellow Ledbetter” and “Lithium”/”Negative Creep” fan.

Bennett Miller is knackered. He’s recently touched down from the Toronto Film Festival where his film “Moneyball” first screened for the masses. It was a project with plenty of baggage by the time he came around to it, and it was a studio system gauntlet in direct contrast to the experience of his directorial debut, “Capote.”

That 2005 would have been a dream introduction to feature filmmaking for any director. Miller was able to work with a slew of collaborators he calls “grounded,” from childhood friends Philip Seymour Hoffman and screenwriter Dan Fogelman to actress Catherine Keener (a close friend), to Sony Pictures Classics heads Michael Barker and Tom Bernard. Even the big reveal for the film — the laid-back Telluride Film Festival — was in keeping with all of that.

Flash forward six years, he’s seen a pet project, “Foxcatcher” — about convicted murderer and heir to the du Pont fortune John Eleuthère du Pont — nearly happen, then fall apart. He’s kept his commercial career going strong while finally saddling up to another feature, one that couldn’t have been more different: mega movie star, huge studio, a tug-of-war on the identity and vision of the film and a bow at the most media-frenzied festival on these shores. 

On a Saturday afternoon at Hollywood’s Cube Restaurant on La Brea, Miller considers his still on-going schedule. He has a few days of further press in Los Angeles (naturally squeezed for everything their worth), a BAFTA event the next day and the Oakland premiere of his film (which he is nevertheless excited about) later in the week. His own bed in New York probably feels like it’s light years away.

He wasn’t expecting a recorder, so I put it away when he’d probably have begrudgingly obliged it. Better to get a vibe and convey those gestures. He’s incredibly soft-spoken, so much so that it probably wouldn’t have picked up on the recorder anyway. But there’s real fire and passion there, if quieted.

He maintains consistent eye contact and uses his hands to help bolster his points with animated gestures. But he’s always listening, always considering, the gears always turning. He flashes a boyish smile when he recalls humorous anecdotes from the production, particularly the difficulty getting baseball fanatic Philip Seymour Hoffman (who he cast in a supporting role in the film) to put down the bat and step away from the batting cage so they could finish this scene or that.

In “Moneyball” — a project which had been nearly a decade in the making and had suffered a very public collapse before Miller ever came around to it — he sees a lot of his own struggles getting it made. “It was a beautiful nightmare,” he says of the process. “But I’m proud of it. It’s like Brad [Pitt] said to me, ‘I’m proud of it for how hard it was.'”

Of course, Pitt was with the project even longer, since 2007. And his sticking with it is likely the only thing that kept air in its lungs when director Steven Soderbergh left after a last-minute 2009 production stoppage (courtesy of studio head Amy Pascal). But Miller still had his fair share of difficulty — internally and externally — navigating a story that didn’t necessarily scream “MOVIE!,” even if it is loaded with themes ripe for expansion.

Miller grew up a Yankees fan, during the team’s late-1970s heyday. Eventually he grew apart from baseball, but the process of making “Moneyball” reinvigorated that spirit somewhat. Mainly he really liked Billy Beane, the subject of the film (who changed the game forever with his implementation of sabermetrics as General Manager of the Oakland Athletics). He was taken by a story of progress, of a man finding that his destiny wasn’t what he thought it would be. It’s not a story of the Holy Grail so much as a story of the quest for the Holy Grail, Miller said at one Toronto Q&A. “It’s a wisdom story,” he tells me.

And indeed, in the tale of a man struggling against the status quo to create something new and exciting, well, Miller says he can relate.

He has questions of the questioner, though. Brett Ratner producing the Oscars? I offer my thoughts: It’s part and parcel of the consumerism of everything (“That would be a great book title,” he says). The Academy wants ratings for its telecast and hopes Ratner can streamline things into something entertaining to watch. I tell him I’m fine with any changes to the actual show but it’s when they start fiddling with the functionality of their voting process (like expanding the Best Picture category to 10 nominees two years ago, then potentially edging out fringe indie cinema with it’s latest rule change) that it begins to bother me. He fully agrees.

He’s curious about the trajectory of cinema and what this point in history could mean for the industry. I humbly offer that DIY production and distribution is likely to become more and more prevalent, especially as streaming finds its way as a major delivery method. He’s saddened by the reduction of things. He recalls a recent New York screening of George Stevens’s “Giant” — one of his favorite films — and the transportation to another time that those three and a half hours inflicted on the still-captivated audience. “You’re never going to duplicate that on a computer screen,” he says. Of course not. “But, it’s like you say,” he ponders. “The consumerism of everything.”

“Moneyball,” though, represents a nice antidote to that. Here’s a sports movie that completely butts up against the grain of what you’d expect, so much so that, ultimately, it’s not a sports movie at all. It’s a mainstream film from a major studio with a huge star that nevertheless maintains a delicate, indie appeal and aesthetic. It exists on its own terms and outside the confines of what could have been rigid formula. It goes without saying, Miller’s very proud of that, too.

“Moneyball” opens nationwide this Friday, September 23.

One story linked in today’s round-up concerns those two internet buzz phrases as of late: “Christopher Nolan” and “The Dark Knight Rises.” The story in question features a chat with Nolan’s Batman franchise star Gary Oldman, who says the secretive director sent him the script for “The Dark Knight Rises” with the final pages missing, and only in person divulged how the trilogy will conclude. This all reminded me of the (absolutely embarrassing) clamoring on the web for any and every morsel to come out of that production, whether it’s shaky, vague, across-the-street footage of Anne Hathaway standing at a cab, out-of-context clips of Joseph Gordon-Levitt crossing a friggin’ street, or the Batmobile creeping through snow-covered sets. The obsession is at an absolute fever pitch, and I frankly find myself saddened that an artist like Nolan has to add to his workload by keeping such a tight lid on things, which must be a full-time job unto itself. Alas, this is what comes with popularity — and quality. If the last two films had been in the Joel Schumacher realm, I imagine Nolan could leave his script on a table at a Starbucks and not have to worry too much about the info spreading. Anyway, let’s see what’s going on in the Oscarweb today…

Is Christopher Nolan refusing to write down the ending of “The Dark Knight Rises?” [Contact Music]

Nevermind, Lars Von Trier isn’t sorry about his Cannes Nazi remarks. [GQ via The Guardian]

Devin Faraci talks “50/50” with the film’s director, Jonathan Levine. [Badass Digest]

Steven Zeitchik ponders the somewhat dubious notion that Ryan Gosling is becoming George Clooney, aka “an A-list star…but rarely a box office draw.” Let’s let him get a little further into his career first, okay? [24 Frames]

Meanwhile, though, it seems the actor is…pondering premature retirement? [The Times via IFC News]

Brian Tallerico talks with Jonah Hill about his career transition in “Moneyball.” [Hollywood Chicago]

Michael Cusumano talks to “Drive” co-star Christina Hendricks about acting during car chases, among other things. [Film Experience]

Sasha Stone lays out the race for Best Director. [Awards Daily]

“The Debt” star Helen Mirren talks her regrets and Shakespearean dreams. [Huffington Post]

At the Emmys, Oscarcast producer Brett Ratner (naturally) talks up Eddie Murphy as host. [MTV Movies Blog]

When you look at sound mixer Scott Millan’s pedigreed resume, the last thing he seems to need is another award. Four Oscars (for “Apollo 13,” “Gladiator,” “Ray” and “The Bourne Ultimatum”) with another four nods besides, three BAFTA awards, five Emmys for daytime soap “The Young and the Restless” and two honors from the Motion Picture Sound Editors organization, for “American Beauty.” That’s quite the haul.

Millan has also been awarded three times by the Cinema Audio Society over the years, including a somewhat unexpected win in 2003 for “Road to Perdition.” (Blockbusters “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers” and “Spider-Man,” as well as eventual Oscar-winning musical “Chicago” seemed likelier victors.) Well, the Society is set to recognize him once again at February’s 48th annual CAS Awards, with a coveted lifetime achievement award.

Millan will be the 30th recipient of the honor, joining the likes of Ray Dolby (I’m sure that last name is familiar), Walter Murch (who has made a long and fruitful career in both sound and picture editing) and Michael Minkler (most recently Oscar-nominated for mixing Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds”), among others.

“The Cinema Audio Society has a long tradition of honoring talent, excellence and integrity, and contributions to the craft of Sound Mixing,” Society President David E. Fluhr said via press release. “I am privileged to have known Scott for many years; to have watched him excel in every area of his expertise, and now to present him with our highest honor.  As he takes on a new and exciting chapter in his career, we can all enjoy a look at his accomplishments so far, and watch as he continues to build on an amazing body of work.”

That “new and exciting chapter,” by the way, is Millan’s recent gig at Technicolor’s brand new post-production facility on the Paramount lot. He took the position alongside fellow mixer Greg P. Russell, who is no stranger to awards recognition, having landed 14 Oscar nominations over the past 20-odd years (though the gold has eluded him thus far). Millan was last nominated (with Russell) for “Salt” last year, and he could be in the mix (no pun intended) with “Captain America: The First Avenger” this year. He also worked on Best Picture contender “The Help,” as well as early-year actioners “Season of the Witch” and “Source Code.”

Gerard Kennedy will be addressing the Best Sound Mixing category via his Tech Support column later in the season.

The 48th annual CAS Awards will take place Saturday, February 18, 2012.

“Did you like the movie?” Nicolas Winding Refn asks buoyantly from a New York sidewalk, as he takes a brief stroll around the block from his hotel. He”s escaped for a hit of air in the midst of a packed publicity schedule, but if he”s at all tired, that isn”t coming through the phone line – the city gives him a buzz, he says. In any case, his question is phrased with jazzed excitement rather than uncertainty: it”s one to which he has every reason to be confident of the answer.

The movie in question, of course, is “Drive,” Refn”s sleek, sexy, bubblegum-flavored fast-car thriller that hit US theaters on Friday. I like it very much indeed, but that hardly makes me special; since bowing in competition at Cannes, where it scooped the Best Director prize for the 40-year-old Dane, the film has collected more critical valentines than are usually reserved for the kind of high-octane action-fests that have a natural home in the multiplex.

Then again, Refn directs it as if he were Henry Higgins to “Fast Five””s Eliza Doolittle, with a discerning eye, a literate ear and a healthy streak of European eccentricity: without wishing to speak for the Justin Lins of this world, it seems unlikely that most filmmakers would find their prime creative inspiration for such a project in the fairytales of the Brothers Grimm.

“Essentially, I just wanted to make a Los Angeles fairytale,” Refn says, good-naturedly rebuffing many critics” notions of “Drive” being primarily a film about other films – with Walter Hill and Michael Mann”s lean, limber heist thrillers of the late 1970s and early 1980s atop the homage checklist. “Of course, you”re dealing with iconic genres that many great films have been made in before yours, so there will be similar cinematic references, but I didn”t consciously set out to make them. I was too busy thinking about fairytales.”

This may sound a cutely implausible approach for a propulsive tale of a stuntman-turned-getaway-driver (Ryan Gosling) coolly handling the bloody fallout from a typically messy Hollywood heist, part of which obligatorily involves romancing the pure-hearted girl (Carey Mulligan) caught up with the heavies. But Refn is evidently not into idle analogies. “It”s a film of two halves,” he explains eagerly. “The first introduces the archetypes: Carey is the innocent maiden who wanders into the forest, Ryan is the knight roaming the land to protect the innocent, Albert Brooks is the evil wizard or king, and so on.”

“Now these larger-than-life figures are symbolic, representing pure emotions,” he continues, warming to his theme, “and so half the movie is pure champagne, concerned with the purity of love, cleansed of anything normal. And the second half, as in the Grimms” stories, is when retribution kicks in and the violators of that purity have to be punished.” They are indeed punished, and gorily so, by Gosling”s knight in shining leather: Refn, who made his name with the brutal Danish underworld antics of the “Pusher” trilogy and progressed through such equally strong-of-stomach fare as “Bronson” and “Valhalla Rising,” isn”t one to shy away from the visceral. But then neither were the Grimms. 

Fairytales weren”t the only fantastical reference point for Refn”s story – adapted as it is from a trim James Sallis pulp novel by the unlikely figure of Oscar-nominated British scribe Hossein Amini (“The Wings of the Dove”) – and the other has rather more traction in the current Hollywood climate.

“There”s clearly a superhero-themed undercurrent throughout,” Refn volunteers, merely underlining a point already made by the film”s recurring (if pre-existing) theme song, a creamy synthpop number by College titled, with a refreshing lack of obliqueness, “A Real Hero.” Any similarities between Gosling”s uncaped, earthbound character and, say, Captain America must remain theoretical, however: “Obviously, he has no superpowers, but he”s an ordinary man who transforms himself into something stronger because that”s what he was always meant to be. The film happens in the real world, but draws repeatedly on the literature and fable of fantasy, and I thought that”d be an interesting language to work with – none of my previous films did that.”

In this regard, he sees “Drive” as a greater stylistic stretch than his 2009 Norse historical epic “Valhalla Rising” – which he still describes as “my science fiction movie, at least in my head” – and certainly “Bronson,” an appropriately wild semi-biopic of Welsh career criminal Charles Bronson that Refn nonetheless thinks of as autobiographical in nature. That”s hardly a self-flattering comparison, but the director is candid about the perceived professional failings that lead him to make it.

“Like ‘Drive,” ‘Bronson” is about a man who wants to transform himself, but into something he doesn”t know exists. He knew he was meant for something special, but he didn”t know what that was – so he realized he wanted to be famous, and that violence would make him famous.” Having raced through this explanation, he pauses briefly before turning the conversation himself. “So my first three films were based not on what I wanted to make, but what I thought great art should consist of. Which is the wrong reason to do any movie, because you will always fail.”

The turning point for Refn, then, came with “Fear X,” a curious 2003 horror venture he admits “haunts [him] still,” the financial disappointment of which bankrupted the up-and-coming filmmaker. “I had to restart my career after that movie,” he sighs. “But by then, I realized that I should look upon filmmaking as one does any art form, in a fetishist way, where it”s all about what I really want to see. I”m the audience of one. Similarly, Bronson discovers that his fight, his violence will destroy him, and through his art he realizes that art is an act of violence. Through art, he undergoes the full transformation of his alter ego.”

What transformation is Refn undergoing with the polished throwback atmospherics of “Drive?” For starters, he”s not shy about describing the film – perhaps a little perversely, given its broodingly boyish energy – as his most romantic, and even feminine, work to date. Indeed, there is a delicacy, a sensuality even, to the film”s construction that bears out that statement – even without the neon pink script of the film”s opening credits. That direction began, according to Refn, with sound rather than sight: principally, the quietly throbbing electro-pulse score devised by composer Cliff Martinez.

“Whenever I make a movie, I try to visualize it as a piece of music,” he explains. “That gives me the images of what I want to see, which helps me complete the script. I was listening to a lot of Kraftwerk and Eno while Hossein and I were developing it, so I had this idea of doing a film about the masculinity of cars, but with electronic music that would almost be like the beating heart of a machine. Not aggressive, hard-edged electronic, but something more feminine, more Euro-influenced, which would be a great counter to the masculine world of machines. And that contrast is crucial, since the greater the film”s extremes, the more drama you can squeeze in between.”

It”s that musical cue, in turn, that informed the 1980s-accented styling of a film that otherwise feels artfully interchangeable in terms of period. Again, Refn is quick to insist that decade”s flavor, evident in details from soundtrack to costume design to editing rhythms, wasn”t a calculated or conscious objective; indeed, he says, it”s a sense that emerged as much from location as anything else. “Only while shooting in Los Angeles,” he muses, “did I realize it”s a town that never left the 80s… architecturally, socially, everything. So that became something I couldn”t escape; on the contrary, I embraced it because it underscores the film as a modern fairytale, making it almost unidentifiable inside.”

The film”s not-quite-period glow is certainly what”s fueled the aforementioned critical parallels to the Mann of “Thief” and the Hill of “The Driver,” though it”s another 1980s stalwart that leading man Gosling – Refn”s new muse, judging both from the mutual adoration both men project and their robust lineup of planned future collaborations – has been invoking in his own interviews about the film.

The director brings up the name before I have to. “Early on, I said to Ryan I always wanted to do a John Hughes movie,” he says with a rich laugh. “You see, when I was young, those were the movies that introduced me to the notion of cinema and love. Not just love, but the illusion of love: they were all about the idea of romance, without the reality and difficulty and heartache.” And “Drive” is such a movie, he thinks? “Well…” he pauses, during which a grin quite audibly covers his face. “It”s ‘Pretty in Pink” with a headsmash.”

It”s a neat quip, though it”s also one that suggests Refn”s range of creative touchstones is broader and wittier than many of even his most admiring viewers credit him with; already, even with highbrow acclaim and accolades seemingly opening up fresh avenues in his career, the convenient tag of “genre filmmaker” is all too frequently welded to his name. He admits he”s not entirely sure what it means; he just likes making movies. “I guess it”s just a label people find it easy to use,” he sighs, his well-earned good mood still much in evidence. “But they used it on John Ford too, so I”m not complaining.”

In today's round-up, Mark Harris brings up something I've been wondering about lately: Could Steven Soderbergh's “Contagion,” a well-regarded, star-studded, financially successful piece of smart dramatic filmmaking be in the hunt for Best Picture recognition? I've had at least one conversation with an Academy member who considers it one of the year's best films. Warner Bros. will already have plenty to work with in “J. Edgar” and “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close,” not to mention a planned Best Picture push for the critically acclaimed and box office-busting “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2,” but talk about a varied slate. Let's see what's going on in the Oscarweb today…

Mark Harris thinks we're all underestimating the Best Picture chances of Steven Soderbergh's “Contagion.” [Grantland]

We're all talking about what the fall festivals DIDN'T tell us about the awards season, but Peter Knegt finds 10 things it DID tell us. [indieWIRE]

Greg Ellwood spins off of Melissa McCarthy's Emmy win and proposes that she's someone to watch for in the Best Supporting Actress category for “Bridesmaids.” [Awards Campaign]

And in the same 12-hour span, Sasha Stone writes up something similar. Must be something in the water. [Awards Daily]

Speaking of which, Chris Nashawaty talks to the film's scribe and star, Kristen Wiig, about her speedy writing process and why Paul Rudd was cut from the film. [Entertainment Weekly]

With “Straw Dogs” in mind, James Frazier takes umbrage with Hollywood depictions of Mississippi with accent on “bigotry, violence and ignorance.” [Washington Times]

Madonna to cut “W.E.” in attempt to salvage awards hopes? [Movieline]

Anthony D'Allessandro talks “Drive,” comedy as anger, Tweeting and Stanley Kubrick with Albert Brooks. [Thompson on Hollywood]

Carole Mallory, meanwhile, tells some stories about her old friend, Brooks, and particularly praises his work in Nicolas Winding Refn's film. [The Wrap]

As we move out of the Toronto fray, Venice and Telluride already a memory, we look to the season ahead. The starting gun echo of those three early fall festivals is beginning to fade away, and with the dust settled or settling, it”s interesting to note the lack of an inarguable emerging player. In fact, the only thing Toronto really did was heat up the Best Foreign Language Film conversation.

In recent years, films like “Brokeback Mountain,” “Juno,” “Slumdog Millionaire” and “The King”s Speech” have bubbled up in this frame as real contenders to take the lead in the Best Picture field. But nothing at this point really seems to have the kind of stranglehold on things those films had.

Alexander Payne”s “The Descendants,” with George Clooney front and center, is well-liked, but few really think it has the goods to be a significant Best Picture threat. Clooney”s own “The Ides of March” has enough detractors to raise doubt that it will be an across-the-board Academy favorite, while “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” – freshly opened in the UK – is happy to just be making the case for a nomination at the moment.

The Weinstein Company”s “The Artist,” from director Michel Hazanavicius, has continued a conversation that began in Cannes. But the overall vibe is that the victory will be landing in the field, not leading it (though who knows with these slightly dwindling returns).

Really, with everything that”s screened in any real capacity right now, if you held the vote today, “The Help” would probably win Best Picture.

What this all could mean is that, as the LA Times” Stephen Zeitchik and Nicole LaPorte proposed last weekend, modest indie, festival-driven cinema might not have much of a seat at the table this year, leaving the spoils for studio offerings. But what it says to me is that the strategy to dodge the festival circuit might have paid off crucially this year.

Peaking early in an Oscar season is always unfortunate. It establishes an expectation at the beginning of a long road. And voters always want something that at least has a whiff of freshness. So studios with films they think have the goods – like Paramount with “Young Adult” and Warner Bros. with “J. Edgar” – will not have to endure that consistent scrutiny from the start.

Jason Reitman has taken each of his films to the Toronto Film Festival, choosing Telluride as a sneak preview launching pad for the last two – “Juno” and “Up in the Air.” But this year, he and Paramount held “Young Adult” back for fear of overexposure.

Warner Bros., meanwhile, has recently brought Clint Eastwood”s work to the New York fest in order to build a sophisticated word of mouth, but it”s never really gone anywhere (largely because the films haven”t really brought the goods). This year, the studio opted for an AFI Fest bow for “J. Edgar” (as did Paramount last year with “The Fighter”), which comes in November as an addition to an on-going conversation. Word is the film wasn”t ready in time for New York, but nevertheless, getting an easy Los Angeles premiere out of the deal will probably have a bigger impact anyway.

Then there are the films that were never meant for the festival circuit, like Steven Spielberg”s one-two punch in “War Horse” and “The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn,” David Fincher”s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” and Stephen Daldry”s “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.” Each of these could get the added boost of not having to rise to an elevated bar.

The flip side of all of this are the held-in-check expectations that will greet this year”s festival crop. Without frothing-at-the-mouth appreciation comes the opportunity for these films to still be a discovery of sorts later in the season. That”s beneficial, as well.

What this all adds up to, for me, is the potential for a competitive late-season frame for these titles, as well as the opportunity for something unseen to really capitalize (if, indeed, there are studios holding onto anything with an eye on weak spots).

It”s refreshing, for once, to not see a clear line to the Kodak. Last year, “The King”s Speech” was looking like the heart vote and the likely winner out of Telluride and Toronto, while “The Social Network” was screening simultaneously in New York and Los Angeles, kick-starting conversation around that film as a more high brow choice. The narrative was already set, and the road was long and grinding from there. Maybe that helps explain most of the restless, frustrating fatigue that set in as Phase One was barely in the books last season.

Don”t get me wrong. There are some interesting variables in the mix from the early September reveals. Brad Pitt, for instance, looks to be a threat in the Best Actor field for “Moneyball.” And he might find some company in that discussion should “Barrymore” and “Rampart” get solid distribution and campaign strategies in place, as Christopher Plummer and Woody Harrelson have established themselves as formidable. But there”s so much more on the horizon, and all of it will have its say.

So I”m excited and hopeful that the season is, finally, something of an unknown in mid-September rather than nearly ready for a postmortem. Bring it on.

(NOTE: The Contenders section won’t be up for another couple of weeks here at HitFix.)

I don’t want to write too much about “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” right now because, point blank, I want to see it again and digest and — gasp! — consider. For now, though, I’ll start with this: It’s an impeccably made, satisfyingly dense piece of work from director Tomas Alfredson. It’s the rare film that is a slow burn but nevertheless moves along at a clip, with a very well-honed editorial sense, I might add.

The thing is, I saddled up to the film this afternoon without knowing the source material or bothering to investigate it much. I’ve never read John le Carre’s novel (I will) and I haven’t seen the 1979 British mini-series starring Alec Guiness (I will). And the vibe I get is it would be helpful to come to the new film with a modicum of knowledge on that, but it’s no less satisfying. It just means a second look is in order, and I’m all for it, because you come away with an extreme reverence for craft here.

Guy saw the film on a rainy day in Venice and offered a perfectly-reasoned take. As I go back and read through it for the first time now, I see it matches my own quite closely. One thing he brought up was the production design from Maria Djurkovic, and while that might not be the sexiest element to start in on, it was nevertheless one of the big takeaways for me here.

Each environment is so meticulously decorated to at times staggeringly profound thematic levels. Whether it’s a dismantled parade dragon in the street, a room of boxed-in chandeliers across from London’s Parliament or the sound-proofed conference room of Britain’s MI6, aka the Circus, the design of the film is telling the story just as much as the writing, Alfredson’s direction or the incredible ensemble performance.

Hoyte Van Hoytema’s camera captures these sets and everything that populates them with an icy objectivity, while Dino Jonsäter’s film editing, as mentioned, makes this complex yarn glide effortlessly along, smartly offering just enough to push forward and yet dialing it back for the performances to take center stage in quieter moments when necessary.

And on those performances — well, where to begin? I’m already getting into a higher word count than I wanted, but let me say Gary Oldman conveys tightly wound awareness and cool collection with equal measure, giving one of his most restrained yet affecting performances to date.

The vast ensemble is littered with highlights, and while I agree with Guy that Tom Hardy’s work is noteworthy for its knowing intelligence and breezy casualness, I was most taken by Benedict Cumberbatch’s peaks and valleys. The actor — who pops up in three films this year — balances gripping paranoia and tension one moment while emoting heart-wrenching loss the next.

Wait, Mark Strong also deserves to be singled out, but enough. I want to sit on it a bit more, give it another look and circle back around. I’m sure Focus would rather string this out a bit given that the US release is two months out, but the film has already landed in the UK, so if there are any Brits who’d like to join in here, feel free to engage in the comments section. More from me on it as we push through the season.

I’m realizing this year that the great costume designer, Mark Bridges, could likely receive his first Oscar nomination (finally) for Michel Hazanavicius’s “The Artist.” Of course, he had to do something expressly period to get there, but this just reminds how hard it is for period design to get a leg up at the Academy Awards. Bridges, you see, has made a career outfitting wonderful contemporary works with directors like Paul Thomas Anderson and David O. Russell. But no matter how quality the work may have been, there’s just a tough road ahead without tons of period or fantasy garb filling the frame. So with that in mind, I hope you’ll read through Simon Kinnear’s wonderful piece on the costumes of Nicolas Winding Refn’s “Drive,” linked in today’s round-up. It should give a nice appreciation of the thematic work that goes into this stuff. Let’s see what’s going on in the Oscarweb today…

Simon Kinnear on the clothing designs of “Drive.” [Clothes on Film]

The film’s soundtrack, meanwhile, rapidly climbs the iTunes charts on strong viral reviews. [The Hollywood Reporter]

Greg Ellwood ponders who got an Oscar bounce out of Toronto. [Awards Campaign]

Anne Thompson talks “Rampart” with writer/director Oren Moverman. [Thompson on Hollywood]

Paramount hangs hopes on Eddie Murphy’s Oscar gig, moves his film “A Thousand Words” to March 23. [Deadline]

On “Contagion” taking the number one spot at the box office last weekend, Patrick Goldstein observes, “When people are beset by anxiety, they often turn to movies that allow them a vicarious release.” [The Big Picture]

With “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” opening across the pond, Terrence Rafferty reflects on John le Carré adaptations through the years. [New York Times]

Meanwhile, William Boyd calls the novel le Carré’s “masterwork” and offers up a dense primer on the material. [The Guardian]

David Poland raises a glass to Sony Pictures Classics on the occasion of the studio’s 20th birthday. [The Hot Blog]

Dedicated readers, welcome to our new digs. First-time readers, I hope you’re ready for more film awards coverage than you know what to do with.

On behalf of my contributors, Guy Lodge and Gerard Kennedy, allow me to say it’s exciting and inspiring to be plugged into the impressive infrastructure here at HitFix, and to be in the able hands of its talented behind-the-scenes team. We enjoyed five splendid years of growth at InContention.com and we’re stoked to continue our coverage here and reach an even wider audience with our little niche.

That niche, obviously, is awards season obsession. As the bio to the right says, In Contention represents a collective of awards obsessives who comment and reflect upon, muse about and attempt to decipher the Oscar season on a daily basis throughout the year, and especially during the Oscar crunch of the fall. So for those who may just now be saddling up to what we do, allow me to shed some light on…what we do.

Interviews, film reviews, festival coverage and up-to-date awards coverage carry In Contention through the season. My “Off the Carpet” column runs every Monday, digging through Oscar buzz from the inside on a weekly basis. Guy Lodge”s “The Long Shot,” meanwhile, runs every Wednesday from London, a thoughtfully removed perspective with an insightful point of view.

The most unique aspect of our contribution to the Oscarweb (as I call it) is coverage of technical/crafts categories and artists. Gerard Kennedy”s weekly “Tech Support” column runs every Thursday, spotlighting these individuals and trades and giving way to an interview series later in the season. Lodge, meanwhile, also offers a weekly “Page to Screen” column in the run-up to the annual awards season, providing commentary on the source materials of various adapted screenplay hopefuls. That column lands every Wednesday during the off-season.

Additionally, I’m joined every Friday during the season by indieWIRE“s Anne Thompson for “Oscar Talk,” a podcast that offers weekly discussion of the twists and turns in the ever-evolving awards circuit.

Our “Contenders” section, by the way, will not be off the ground at HitFix for another couple of weeks, but as soon as it is, it will be linked at the top and in the right sidebar. That will take you to a page that lists out all of the categories and let’s you peruse how we think they’re shaping up and how various Oscar hopefuls are faring.

And there are naturally other bits and bobs sprinkled throughout. Whether it’s breaking awards news, Tuesday lists for a bit of fun or just general discussion of what’s in the marketplace, we aim to be a one-stop shop. We hope you enjoy the ride.

Now, where were we…

INFLUENTIAL INCONTENTION.COM FILM BLOG
NOW POWERED BY HITFIX.COM

LOS ANGELES, September 14, 2011 – HitFix, a leader in entertainment news, today announced a strategic partnership with film and awards season blog, In Contention. This mutually beneficial alliance will provide readers and Academy Members with multiple perspectives on compelling content about the upcoming awards season.

“By partnering with In Contention, HitFix is adding another strong voice to our already acclaimed team of Gregory Ellwood, Alan Sepinwall, Drew McWeeny, Melinda Newman and Dan Fienberg,” said CEO Jennifer Sargent. “The combination of Awards Campaign and In Contention makes HitFix the premier destination for anyone interested in awards season.”

InContention.com, spearheaded by Owner and Editor-in-Chief, Kristopher Tapley, is a premier film blog with an awards focus that provides unparalleled access and expert commentary about all aspects of Academy Season. HitFix.com”s Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief, Gregory Ellwood, currently pens Awards Campaign, a popular awards season blog that provides behind-the-scenes and in-depth analysis of Hollywood”s yearly strategic march to the Academy Awards. InContention.com, meanwhile, brings a distinctly unique voice and perspective on awards season, as well as invaluable insights from festivals and industry events throughout the year. Combined, the two blogs cover every angle, providing the best and most accurate up-to-date awards coverage.

“It”s so very gratifying to see my six-year labor of love plugged into an impressive infrastructure like HitFix,” Tapley said. “In Contention has always been about establishing a conversation throughout the awards season, with fans and industry insiders alike, and as a part of HitFix, that conversation will only grow. I look forward to tapping an even wider audience and bringing the In Contention community into this new and exciting phase.”

“Kris and his longtime contributor Guy Lodge are smart and insightful pundits who are respected throughout the industry. I”m incredibly excited to have their cinematic opinions incorporated into the HitFix mix,” Ellwood said. “This partnership will make HitFix the premier destination for awards season coverage online.”

In Contention was founded by Kristopher Tapley in 2005. Formerly a seasonal outlet purely focused on the Oscar race, the site bridged the gap with consistent off-season commentary and industry coverage in early 2008 after exclusively covering the film awards season for three years on the web. Regular contributors include Guy Lodge and Gerard Kennedy.

About HitFix
Profiled in BusinessWeek as one of “America”s Most Promising Start-ups,” Los Angeles-based HitFix brings the world of entertainment news and events to discerning fans that prefer entertainment journalism and events to celebrity scandal. The site reaches more than 2 million unique users each month and is designed for an 18-34 year old demographic. HitFix calls on the talents of renowned entertainment commentators and journalists such as Alan Sepinwall, Drew McWeeny, Daniel Fienberg and Melinda Newman to produce wide-ranging news, interviews and commentary on all aspects of entertainment. For more information visit www.HitFix.com, www.facebook.com/hitfix, www.twitter.com/hitfix or www.youtube.com/hitfix.

Hollywood is going into uncharted territory this awards season.  How you might ask?  It’s the first time the 5% rule will be implemented to determine how many best picture nominees will battle for Oscar’s biggest prize.  Brett Ratner  is officially co-producing the Academy Awards (it’s a bad dream right?) with Eddie “don’t call it another comeback” Murphy tapped to host for the first time.  And on a lighter note, the HFPA or Dick Clark Productions will attempt to put their legal case aside and survive a one-year agreement to co-produce the Golden Globes once again on NBC.  And that’s not even taking into account the drama in the crowded best actress race, yet another Scott Rudin vs. Harvey Weinstein best picture battle, Glenn Close’s last stand and Michael Fassbender’s out of the blue best actor candidacy.  That’s a lot for any awards pundit to cover or analyze and it’s just September.  So,  it’s with great pride that I announce our film and awards season coverage just received a major boost with the addition of In Contention to the HitFix family.

Many of you hardcore Oscar fans are well aware of Kris Tapley’s blog and the fantastic amount of year-round commentary, reviews and film news it provides.  Kris has spend the last six years fashioning In Contention into one of the most respected film blogs on the web.  Along with regular contributors Guy Lodge and Gerard Kennedy, In Contention has provided awards season and film coverage from across the globe standing by HitFix’s own efforts at Cannes, Comic-Con, Telluride and more.  

A fellow and longstanding member of MCN’s “Gurus of Gold,” Tapley is one of the smartest and level-headed awards season pundits on the scene.  He has a keen strategic eye for recognizing what the Academy will go for or not go for.  He also happens to have a great overall taste in movies (and not to mention a wry sense of humor fairly evident in his writing).   London-based Lodge is an impressive film critic and writer who brings a unique perspective from the other side of the pond.  Tapley and Lodge are the sort of engaging and conversation starting voices we’ve worked hard to recruit at HitFix.

The great thing about this new partnership is that Awards Campaign isn’t going away. The combined talents of both blogs will allow a unique and indepth perspective of awards season we believe you just can’t get anywhere else. If something is happening during awards season you’re going to hear about it on HitFix.  It’s that simple.

So, whether you’ve been a fan of myself or Drew McWeeny on the film side; Dan Fienberg, Alan Sepinwall or Liane Bonin Starr on the TV front or Melinda Newman or Katie Hasty on the music beat, we all hope you’ll give Tapley and his team a warm welcome when In Contention officially moves into its HitFix digs next week.

Kris has a tongue-in-cheek saying on In Contention. “No one needs awards season coverage this deep…”  Well ladies and gentlemen, it just got much deeper.