“The Motion Picture.” This phrase necessarily implies that the picture is, indeed, moving, and in the absence of this trait the world of cinema would not exist. Yet it does exist due to the motion picture camera. Those who master the trade of camerawork with respect to motion pictures are cinematographers. And the work that these talented individuals do for the quality of films is nothing short of invaluable.

The Academy Award for cinematography is, in my opinion, one of the most impressive Academy Awards an individual can win. So much of a movie is captured in the way it is shot. From lighting to framing to camera positioning to much, much more, mood is set, story is told and the film experience is affected...all due to the camerawork. In all fairness, I am not always thrilled with the winners in the category or even the nominees. “Prettiness” is rewarded a lot here. And while making a beautiful image is certainly an accomplishment, and one that usually makes the film better, I hardly think that it makes the achievement automatically award-worthy.

A chart update flew under the radar this week. Sorry about that, but lack of time and of relevant discussion (not to mention the fact that everyone set screenings this week and I'm packing them in) made it difficult to get around to an Oscar column. But the charts are updated nonetheless.

In the meantime, Movie City News has launched the Gurus of Gold again this year. It's always interesting to see where people's minds are at this far out.

FYI, there will be a fairly substantial announcement in the coming weeks regarding In Contention that should explain the slow-down of activity here and my absence from this year's Gurus line-up.

Ridley Scott’s “American Gangster” is the most “New York” film the cinema has seen since Martin Scorsese’s “Mean Streets.” Every frame of the effort oozes the grime and grit of 1970s Manhattan, that sort of thorough representation that leaves you almost catching a whiff of sewer exhaust or feeling the bite of a northeasterly rain. And yet, as AMERICAN as the film and its subject matter are, there is the strange awareness that a Brit is at the helm, a sense of European observation to it all. Though Scott was a New Yorker in the 70s and knows the territory through which he navigates, it is that curious disconnect which makes “American Gangster” somewhat unique in this generally agreed upon sub-genre of hard-boiled cinema.

Denzel Washington stars as Frank Lucas, a figure of organized crime in Harlem during the 1960s and 70s who engineered one of the most deceptive drug trafficking schemes of the era. In a time dominated by Italian mafia, “middle men” and a generally accepted way of subverting law and order, Lucas is a man driven by his own convictions, hubris and greed. Acclimated to the business by famed Harlem kingpin Ellsworth “Bumpy” Johnson (Clarence Williams III), Lucas takes over the neighborhood from “river to river” after Johnson’s heart attack death in 1968. In doing so, he inevitably backs himself into a corner and ultimately exposes corruption within the New York Police Department and U.S. military to an extent unheard of even in an era of increasing public mistrust in governing officials.

Lucas goes right to the source in delivering a more potent product to his streets at a lesser cost. Taking note of G.I. drug use in Southeast Asia, he makes the trip to the heart of darkness, establishing his own source of opium in the jungle and transporting his product in the coffins of dead soldiers returning to the states. The level of conspiracy and outright corruption seems twisted and disturbing even today. Mark Jacobson’s “The Return of Superfly” (the New York Magazine article on which Steven Zaillian’s screenplay is based) tells us Lucas was pulling down upwards of $1 million per day (a “day” being between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m., mind you).

Detective Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe), a New Jersey police officer and part of a perpetually dying breed of honest cop, moonlights as a law student while serving subpoenas by day. But his “wouldn’t take a dime off the street” mentality is what leads to his appointment as the head of a task force looking into drug trafficking in the city, and specifically, this new, atypically pure substance on the streets: “Blue Magic.” Meanwhile his personal life is in shambles as his wife seeks full custody of his child.

In Richie Roberts, Russell Crowe finally brings another humble and internally compelling performance to the screen, his first such effort since an Oscar-nominated turn in 1999’s “The Insider.” Having made a career of seven-plus years on largely charismatic characters, it’s refreshing to see the actor go back to the roots of Jeffrey Wigand and Wendell White, roots that brought an audience’s attention to his talents in the first place.

Washington, meanwhile, is on fire as Lucas, summoning a lot of the bite and venom that went into his Oscar-winning performance in 2001’s “Training Day.” Lucas, as portrayed by Zaillian, was a man who believed in the camouflage of family and the resistance of flare. He stayed off NYPD radar for so many years largely because he lingered casually amidst the scenery, sporting modest suits and adhering to an incredibly typical routine. Washington does a fine job of conveying this honed and guided individual, only rarely giving glimpses of internal, human strife that illuminate motive here and there, but never so much as to warrant forgiveness (though the script would ask otherwise of the viewer). It’s easily a performance good enough for awards consideration.

Elsewhere a distinguished and varied ensemble gets the job done. Josh Brolin is properly slimy and brash as a crooked NYPD cop on the take, while RZA and John Hawkes knock out solid work alongside Crowe as members of Roberts’s task squad. Armand Assante overreaches (though is fun to watch) as a Mafioso in cahoots with Lucas, and Carala Gugino offers a lot of context for Roberts’s softer side. Chiwetel Ejiofor is capable as always (as a younger Lucas brother), but perhaps the most compelling performance of the piece comes from John Ortiz, as Javy Rivera, a tragic figure and early partner of Roberts’s who finds himself sucked into the world he’s supposed to be cleaning up.

Scott’s technical team, no surprise here, is second to none. Pietro Scalia in particular proves why he is one of the best editors in the game, pushing a two and a half hour story forward at a staggering pace. The photography from Harris Savides serves the territory accordingly and the period detail from design heads Arthur Max and Janty Yates never distracts and always feels accurate. Marc Streitenfeld orchestrates a somber score infused with a soundtrack that would make Martin Scorsese tap his foot. Great work all around.

It could be said that “American Gangster” ends on a somewhat ambiguous note (out of context), though most of the third act throws that ambiguity out the window. Nevertheless, a final image of Lucas on the street, Chuck D and Public Enemy preaching in the background, an OG in a brave new world of gangster thuggery – it’s a striking artistic decision, one of Scott’s most intriguing visual ideas in many a film.

In the first Tech Support column of 2007, which ran three weeks ago, I mentioned how many apparent contenders for the upcoming Oscar season had already surfaced in films as varied as “Transformers,” “Spider-Man 3,” “Hairspray” and “Ratatouille.” But in a situation similar to that for the awards race as a whole, it turns out the Venice and Toronto film festivals have truly added a lot of heat to the crafts race fire. A great number of films seeking to be contenders have joined the ranks of the summer titles.

Not much in the way of a full column to offer this week. The big winners out of Toronto obviously begin with "Eastern Promises" (People's Choice award winner), which has some steam built up for mentions in Best Director, Best Actor and Best Original Screenplay...Best Picture would take a lot of creativity on Focus's part.

ThinkFilm now has a jewel to sell in "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead," which could land a notice for Philip Seymour Hoffman's stellar performance. He'll get in his own way with "Charlie Wilson's War" and "The Savages," however.

Lots of love all around for "Juno" is a great sign for Ellen Page and Diablo Cody (I still love that she has a cat named Douchebagger). Perhaps it's enough to go the distance, but Searchlight has a lot to work with on pretty much their entire slate.

A lot of respect came for Sean Penn's "Into the Wild," but being a huge fan of the Jon Krakauer book, I found it extremely lacking - at least as an initial reaction. I hope to see it again before really digging into a review, but it has some troubles in my book. I seem to be pretty much alone in that opinion so far, however.

"Elizabeth: The Golden Age" took the biggest hit. But Universal still has what appears to be their biggest hope, "American Gangster," which begins screening in Los Angeles tomorrow night.

And of course, in a season where no one wants to be the frontrunner, "Atonement" still seems to be the one to beat all around.

Nothing much else in the ether for now, so I'll leave it at that.

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts

The Contenders (by category)
2007 Films-by-Studio Rundown
Oscar Predictions Archive

Previous Oscar Columns:
09/10/07 - "Notes from the Eye of a Storm"
09/03/07 - "Launching the New Season"
08/03/07 - "August Update"
07/01/07 - "The Silence is Deafening"
02/26/07 - "Forging Ahead: In Contention's Year in Advance Oscar Speculation"

2006 Predictions Archive

In 1983, author Ron Hansen crafted a novel that ought to be considered mandatory reading for anyone considering him or herself attracted to the western as a genre and as a conveyor of essential truth. A Shakespearean account of betrayal in the old west, Hansen’s broad sketches revealed deep and vibrant characters that transcended the nickel-book mythology into which they inevitably found themselves woven. Twenty-four years later, filmmaker Andrew Dominik has accomplished a visual telling of that story which is as close to cinematic perfection as you could hope to imagine. At the risk of sensationalism, I would call “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” the most accomplished work of moving imagery committed to film in nearly a decade. It is a staggering piece of true cinematic art.

The tale is as simple as it is complex, a trait shared by the greatest of western storytelling. Jesse James (Brad Pitt), the infamous outlaw of old, found himself the subject of obsession, fascination and idolatry by the young and ambitious Robert Ford (Casey Affleck). A yearning to touch greatness, or even reside in similar territory, drove Ford to seek out acceptance amongst James and his gang of outlaws in the waning years of the 19th century. A lethal combination of angst, envy, hubris and sanctioned encouragement brought Ford to a place on April 3, 1882 where firing a bullet into the back of James’s skull seemed the logical course of action. And so it was.

Dominik and director of photography Roger Deakins have framed the legend of Jesse James in some instances by blurring the outer edges of the frame. Perhaps the intention is to convey a legend we know little about, given the cloud of mythology that surrounds actuality. But there are depths of reality here that speak to some fairly grandiose truths, and that, I think, is what Dominik is driving at. With all the sensationalized accounts, all of the larger-than-life depiction, there is true poetry in the life and death of the outlaw. And there is true poetry in his assassin’s regret. Myth is born out of realism, and Andrew Dominik, an Australian, seems to understand the American western better than any contemporary, and many who paved the way before him.

Brad Pitt has never been better, giving a performance that internalizes more than it externalizes. James’s untold fire simmers behind Pitt’s baby blue eyes, but the actor manages to be as affecting in his affability as he is in his cerebral terrorization. The downward spiral of the movie is one of presentiment and suspicion, and Pitt’s conveyance of a dubious and physically sickened soul can be unsettling at times. It is the kind of portrayal that might be lost in the awards shuffle if it didn’t come from a marquee player, but if Warner Bros. wanted it bad enough, they could secure a defined slot for Pitt amongst the Best Actor hopefuls at season’s end. But that is the only awards talk I’ll afford. This film is beyond all of that, in my view.

Offering a raspy and clumsy syntax from the mouth of a pasty, nubile face, Casey Affleck steers the ship for the most part. His Robert Ford is despicable to a point, but genuine viewer sympathy takes hold here and there. It is really a roller-coaster of emotions as far as audience connectivity goes, but the actor more than manages. As creepy and “willy-giving” as Ford is, Affleck gifts the character with a magnetic quality that can’t be ignored. It’s a definitive portrayal of youth misunderstood and, ultimately, regretfully reckless.

The rest of the ensemble fills out accordingly. Sam Rockwell gives one of his best performances to date as Ford’s older brother, Charley, guilt-stricken at the end of his life for his complicity in the assassination of Jesse James. Paul Schneider, one of the screen’s newest and most promising young actors, takes the role of misfit Dick Liddel to acceptably breezy territory, while Sam Shepard has an all-too-brief stint in the film’s first act as the other half of the James boys, Frank. Elsewhere, Jeremy Renner and especially “Deadwood’s” Garret Dillahunt provide stable and affecting portrayals.

Dominik has enlisted the use of a narrator on his film, a choice that might at first seem an irritant. Indeed, Hugh Ross’s voice has a high-pitched quality that almost resembles the speaker on Baz Luhrmann’s “Everybody’s Free (To Wear Sunscreen).” But soon enough the cadence settles into a near-lullaby, the perfect audible guide through cerebrally complex territory. In hindsight, the uniqueness of the film’s pacing – keeping the narration in mind – is one of the most deliberate and ultimately welcome aspects of the film. I could literally have watched this play out for hours on end.

Technically, “Jesse James” is a marvel. The art department detail from Patricia Norris (behind both set and costume design) is something to behold, and it marries itself considerably to Roger Deakins’s painterly cinematography. Some of the shots Deakins and Dominik have envisioned are immediately iconic. This is one of the most beautiful films of the year.

Aurally, the work exhibits an array of layers equally affecting. The sound of gunfire has a bombastic and genuine quality that recalls Kevin Costner’s realistic use of sound in “Open Range.” But a certain sense of terror, of actually being there, rests in the soundtrack of “Jesse James.” And the score, a beautiful violin construction from Bad Seeds member Warren Ellis, is divine in its simplicity. Bad Seeds front man Nick Cave pops up, by the way, belting the classic “The Ballad of Jesse James” in a saloon near the film’s end.

There is plenty to be said of what Andrew Dominik has accomplished, and for my part, I think I’ve said it. But while considering the opinions of others within a film review isn’t my usual course of action, I have to be clear that anyone considering this film “pretentious” just doesn’t have a clear understanding of what that word means. There isn’t a whiff of pretension on the effort. It is as straight-forward as they come, as simple and defined and considerate of the western genre’s applications as I’ve ever seen. Like Ang Lee’s equally maligned (in some quarters) “Lust, Caution,” Dominik’s film takes its time and marinates, but it never once dabbles or wanders in unnecessary territory.

This is assured and confident craftsmanship.

Sydney Lumet’s “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” can indeed be deemed that simplest of dramatic terms: tragedy. But there is something to be said about a work of drama – whatever the medium – that settles so deep inside of you and is so deliberate in its downward spiral of emotional distress that you can’t really feel anything when the credits role or the curtain drops. The numbing effect has kind of transcended empathy and compassion, personal discomfort and outright sadness. There’s just…nothing. That is what this film does.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke star as Andy and Hank, brothers living separate and dissimilar lives but equally unhappy with the way their hand has played out. Just past the point where mid-life crisis makes the most sense, the troubling notion that “this” is all there is has given way to a certain desire for more that would allow outrageous or foolish action.

Andy has a beautiful and sexy wife, Gina (Marissa Tomei). However, the last time it seems he was attracted to her enough that he – shall we say “performed” – was a recent vacation in Rio. It is that brief spike of happiness that opens the film, in fact, no “performance” issues in sight. And it’s damn brave of Lumet to open a film with Phil Hoffman laying into Marissa Tomei from the backside, but at his age and with his credentials, the guy knows how to get your attention.

Hank, meanwhile, owes considerable child support and is more often than not seen apologizing for and feeling sorry for his broken family. He and Gina have been engaging in an affair for God knows how long, he’s in love with her, and she seems to take deep-seeded umbrage with the fact that her own husband doesn’t find her attractive anymore, burying herself in the sheer physicality of what she has with Hank.

Andy devises a scheme with the air of poseur about him. They both need money, though Andy is less than forthcoming with his apparent financial woes. He wants to knock off a mom and pop jewelry store and hopes to enlist Hank’s assistance. The money would solve both of their problems, and given that the merchandise is insured, no one gets hurt. Oh, and the “mom and pop jewelry store” belongs to their parents, Charles and Nanette (Albert Finney and Rosemary Harris respectively).

Yeah, it’s a screwed up family.

The robbery goes awry when Hank brings a third party, Bobby, into the fold. Nanette, who wasn’t supposed to be at the store, is shot and killed. Hank begins to get squeezed by Bobby’s wife and brother-in-law. The IRS discovers Andy has been stealing from his company and Charles starts to put the pieces together. If it isn’t obvious, it’s a painful sequence of events to watch.

What actually elevates the effort above what could have been a throwaway some flunky could have cooked up and passed off as a film are the two performances at the center of the piece. They are no doubt due to the steady, confident, assured and tested hand of a living legend behind the camera.

This is Hoffman’s best performance since “Owning Mahowny,” and yes, that includes his overrated impressions in “Capote.” He absolutely lives inside this character, offering a weird, almost terrifying glimpse of a man ruined by a trying childhood and angry with his father for God knows what. And these aren’t details that find themselves even close to the surface. One outburst might say it all for Andy, but it’s the details that said outburst illuminates in other portions of the film that spotlight why this is a killer performance worthy of awards recognition.

Hawke is spot-on in a role that finally makes good use of that awkward realism he struggles to convey in perhaps one too many performances. When Hank starts to unfold, it’s real and we feel it and, damn it, it doesn’t feel like a movie anymore. When the stakes get higher, Hawke’s reactions seem paradoxically polished in their imperfection. Thrown into the mix is the sense that Hank is a romantic, buried by the cynicism of reality and the hardships of an unforgiving city.

Marissa Tomei – God bless her – walks around the film topless for the most part, but offers a performance ranging from sexy, vulnerable and optimistic to weary, defeated and cynical. Albert Finney is good if somewhat elusive, while Rosemary Harris has little to do but emboss a character we’re actually sad to see go, despite what little we know of her.

“Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” is one of the best films of the year if only because it does so much with so little. The story is conveyed in a broken narrative fashion that would seem unnecessary at first, but one discovers the choice oddly enlightens the viewer to the inner workings of the characters at a deliberate and particular pace, allowing for a certain marinating quality. That Lumet is still knocking stuff like this out of the park at his age is becoming almost an expected fact, but there is something special working within the frames of this picture. You just don’t come across a filmmaker able to drill this deep anymore.

Visual effects have, in many respects, been at the forefront of a change that has been occurring in cinema since “Star Wars,” where the increasingly sophisticated methods of filmmaking technology are becoming ever more important to the perception of quality in film. The increasingly expensive aspect of filmmaking is, as I noted in my column last year, perhaps most appreciated by the general public and the sole crafts medium on which a studio might try to sell a movie outright.

The Academy Award for visual effects is chosen in a manner different than every other category except makeup. The branch does not vote directly for five nominees. Rather, a list of seven finalists is announced (usually in late December, though occasionally in early January) and a committee will then screen the work and three nominees will be named on nomination morning.

This truly is the category where blockbusters rule the day. Unlike other categories, where prestige often carries the torch, the visual effects branch rewards the money-making studio efforts. This is seen in the fact that summer films usually form the majority of the nominees in the category. Last year, in fact, they formed all three. One of the reasons I am discussing this category so early this year is that we have seen so many of the contenders already. (Including, in my opinion, the three nominees, but we’ll get there in a minute.)

The first casualties of the season have popped up in varying degrees, with “Elizabeth: The Golden Age,” “Lust, Caution” (despite a puzzling victory in Venice amongst rampant distaste), “Margot at the Wedding” and “Rendition” missing the mark demanded by Best Picture recognition. Crowd-pleasers have announced themselves in the form of “Into the Wild,” “Juno” and “Michael Clayton.” In one way or another, you could make the case that puzzle pieces are being revealed and moved into place. So why does the film awards landscape seem as malleable four days into the biggest early landmark as it did a week ago?

2007 has been, and seemingly will continue to remain, the most muted year in quite a long while where pegging the Oscar race is concerned. The playing field is so level as to suggest an unremarkable season, but damn if it doesn’t appear to be a paradoxically compelling fall to watch as films continue to reveal themselves. With this spirit in mind, I went out a little further onto various limbs this week in the prediction charts because, honestly, the canvas still feels vacant.

But there are things to consider.

Indeed, Paramount Vantage is four-square behind Sean Penn’s “Into the Wild,” getting encouraging notices from those who see the film. A huge Hal Holbrook push has been confirmed (after initial speculation on my part last week), while elements like the photography of Eric Gautier (a gorgeous tip of the hat to the American frontier), Emile Hirsch’s leading turn and a score from Michael Brook, supported by original content from Eddie Vedder, are all specific focuses in the coming campaign.

Speaking of Vantage, the studio unveiled spectacular materials this week for Paul Thomas Anderson’s “There Will Be Blood.” A solid teaser poster and a damn fine second trailer announced what could be another ambitious undertaking from the director, one that seemingly boasts yet another searing Daniel Day-Lewis portrayal at the heart of the matter.

Meanwhile, the Miramax camp knows it has a critical and likely popular hit in the Coen brothers’ “No Country for Old Men,” so they are taking the opportunity to drum up some anticipation and consideration for Julian Schnabel’s Cannes hit “The Diving Bell and Butterfly” and Ben Affleck’s directorial debut “Gone Baby Gone.” The latter has the studio pretty high on Amy Ryan’s performance. It makes some sense, considering the actress has the most potent role in the script and she’ll be popping up in Variety’s coveted “Top 10 Actresses to Watch” special in the coming weeks.

“The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” has to have the Warner Bros. lot considering ways to push it toward higher success than in the technical races. Part of me thinks that singular work from Andrew Dominik could be something the directors’ branch will embrace, while acting recognition in Venice could mean something to consider where Brad Pitt and perhaps Casey Affleck are concerned. But the studio is pushing two films that seem to fail at garnering a consensus decision amongst the critical community, so it’s tricky for last year’s victors.

The real glut of potential seems to sit with Vantage and Fox Searchlight Pictures, the former covered in depth already and the latter hoping to secure 4/5 of the original screenplay category, among other things. Other studios are either hoping to spin early entries into something to work with (“Hairspray” at New Line) or otherwise continue to hold cards to their chest (“Sweeney Todd” at Dreamworks, “American Gangster” at Universal – though no one at the studio has seen much of “Charlie Wilson’s War” yet).

But there’s still a whole lot of Toronto and an entire season to wade through before answers of any real consequence start rolling in. I guess…we wait.

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts

The Contenders (by category)
2007 Films-by-Studio Rundown
Oscar Predictions Archive

Previous Oscar Columns:
09/03/07 - "Launching the New Season"
08/03/07 - "August Update"
07/01/07 - "The Silence is Deafening"
02/26/07 - "Forging Ahead: In Contention's Year in Advance Oscar Speculation"

2006 Predictions Archive

John had some technical difficulties the last two days, which made updating his coverage a chore. But it's all cleared up now and he has extended thoughts on "Rendition," "Michael Clayton," "Eastern Promises," "Into the Wild" and "No Country for Old Men" up, along with the posts on "The Brave One" and "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford." Give it a look.

Just a note regarding the Toronto International Film Festival, which begins today and will answer a lot of questions as we dive into the Oscar season.

John Foote will be filing daily reports at the end of each day, a little different than Gerard's hour-by-hour coverage last year. I'll be sure to link to the pieces that really stand out, but be sure to check the Toronto section of the site consistently enough to stay on top of what John's seeing, who he's talking to and where the buzz seems to be shifting. It should be a hell of a fest.

The crafts categories at the Oscars can be analyzed in many ways. It is possible to observe tendencies, whether they are related to famous individual artists, predispositions to gravitate towards Best Picture nominees, or the fact that box office flops are usually avoided.

But perhaps one of the most noted trends is the dominance of the period piece. I can still remember when I was first watching the Oscars, and the award for Best Costume Design was being presented. My father remarked, “It’s so much harder to design something that is real.” I’m not sure I totally agree with this assessment given that the past provides a template from which someone can already work and an artist’s imagination does not start from scratch. I personally consider the best crafts accomplishments to be those which contribute to the story and make the film better, regardless of the time they are attempting to convey.

However, it certainly must be conceded that, in the period piece, there is an inherent need for accuracy, while also contributing to the mood and feel of the film. This is not to mention that fashioning period through crafts automatically draws attention to itself, given that we do not see the era depicted in day-to-day life, if we have seen it at all.

Going into the pre-Toronto frame, we finally kick off our weekly Oscar coverage here at In Contention. Hopefully “weekly” won’t become a relative term as the season (and grad school) progresses, but we’ll see how it goes. For now, there are actually a few things worth discussing, even if there is little hard news to bandy about.

For instance, coming out of Venice it looks like Joe Wright’s “Atonement” could just be the first clearly defined Best Picture contender of the season. There are those who might say Fox Searchlight’s “Once” has the steam, but people are tripping over themselves for the Ian McEwan adaptation that, at the very least, will sweep through the BAFTAs like a monsoon.

Most studios still seem content with sitting on their product rather than announcing awards potential, a sound strategy the year after “Dreamgirls” was deemed unstoppable by Dreamworks publicity early in the 2006 season. There’ve been lots of peek-a-boo screenings for some films in order to keep the excitement (or lack thereof) bottled up. Studios seem more particular than ever about who sees their films and when. “In the Valley of Elah,” for instance, was screening months ago in this fashion but only started to fall before a significant number of eyes last week.

Screenings of “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” and “Michael Clayton” are taking place on the Warner lot, though the studio has been adamant about embargoes (many of them crashing this weekend). The former is splitting a great number of critics, though it has been dubbed a masterpiece in some circles, while the latter is finding appreciation but little passion.

We can stick a wet finger to the win to discern some things in other quarters. For instance, there was one “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” pre-Toronto screening set (that I’m aware of), though Universal has already booked “American Gangster” all over the place post-fest and was even testing it as recently as two weeks ago. That might give an indication of Best Picture excitement, or it might not. The fact that no one seems willing to talk up “Charlie Wilson’s War” yet should be taken into account as well. It’s the closest thing to a frontrunner on paper, but no one wants that moniker the year after the most un-promoted film took the whole enchilada.

Meanwhile, I’ve heard varying things on varying films. “The Kite Runner” is apparently much better than the schmaltzy trailer would suggest, with lots of love at least from those with an interest. No one is beating down my doors about it, mind you, but it seems to be satisfying across the board. The film does seem like it could be a secret weapon for Paramount Vantage, even if they are already in the process of post-fest pushes for both “Into the Wild” and “Margot at the Wedding.”

I’ve already heard “it’s this year’s ‘All the King’s Men’” as it pertains to Gavin Hood’s “Rendition.” Apparently it might be a train wreck, though like any good journalist, I’ll suggest you take that with a grain of salt as we’ll all make up our own minds sooner or later. Keeping it in the New Line wheelhouse, some apparently felt the “Golden Compass” footage shown at Comic-Con was flat and left them unsatisfied (I missed the panel). Not good for something as epic as a “His Dark Materials” adaptation, but we’ll see how the whole picture plays out.

Oh, and last week someone told me “Lars and the Real Girl” boasts Ryan Gosling’s best performance to date, and that the film is a real winner. For what it’s worth.

Of the films already released, it seems “Hairspray” will find joy amongst the craft categories, especially in the design fields. “Once” has two original songs eligible for consideration, while “Waitress” has one, so Searchlight will be trying to get the word out on those. The summer blockbusters still look to dominate in the sound and visual effects fields, though potential sequel fatigue has Searchlight hopeful a film like “Sunshine” could penetrate for its exceptional visuals.

“3:10 to Yuma” has a week before release, but it already boasts a wealth of supporters that might just give Lionsgate the reason they need to launch a full scale attack, with merely “Trade” left to show. And, of course, the lead actress category was stacked before the Oscar season began to take shape, with Julie Christie (“Away from Her”), Marion Cotillard (”La Vie en Rose”) and Angelina Jolie (“A Mighty Heart”) already packing heat. Jodie Foster will add to that mix in two weeks with a good performance in a not-so-good film (“The Brave One”).

But for now, we wait until the dust settles in Toronto and Telluride. First looks at a number of films will tell the tale, leaving a few outlying big guns still to bow. Will upcoming efforts like “Charlie Wilson’s War” and “Sweeney Todd” still manage a foothold if the stacked festival line-up proves to be a solid one? Or could negative fallout from a variety of films leave holes in the season for such latter year entries to waltz right on through? We’ll know in two weeks time, and then it’ll be a whole new guessing game.

After all, there are only five slots to fill.

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts

The Contenders (by category)
2007 Films-by-Studio Rundown
Oscar Predictions Archive

Previous Oscar Columns:
08/03/07 - "August Update"
07/01/07 - "The Silence is Deafening"
02/26/07 - "Forging Ahead: In Contention's Year in Advance Oscar Speculation"

2006 Predictions Archive