Lots of movement this week, none of which should be considered representative of personal opinion, mind you.

"The Great Debaters" is making the rounds (everything from "I loved it" to "it's a TV movie"), a few have seen "Sweeney Todd" and "Charlie Wilson's War" is still to be seen.

When things settle down, I'll get back into the review groove. For now:

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts

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

Previous Oscar Columns:
10/15/07 - "The Oil Man vs. the Demon Barber?"
10/08/07 - "Clean-up on Aisle September"
10/01/07 - "Still Anybody's Game"
09/17/07 - "Post-Toronto Update"
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

Despite the work going into Red Carpet District, I wanted to remind you all that chart and prediction updates will continue. Look for a new batch Monday (though the sidebar is already updated).

Variety's Award Central re-design has launched today, along with the Red Carpet District Oscar blog I'll be editing for the trade.

Hope you all enjoy the proceedings.

Music as an art form predates history. It has been involved in the art of filmmaking before sound was even introduced when music accompanied the great silent films of masters such as Eisenstein, Chaplin and Keaton. Music can enliven every motion and emotion captured by the camera as film composers have come to master this particular craft.

There are actually two music awards given out by the Academy. One of these, Best Original Song, awards – you guessed it - songs. That is a strange category year to year and it will be the last one I deal with in depth this season, once it clears itself up somewhat. The other category, and one of the most interesting and most noted craft races, is the Best Original Score category, which awards the original music compositions that accompany the visuals we watch on the screen.

I’ve been covering the Oscar season online for nearly seven years. I would say I’ve seen the trenches of amateur coverage, experienced the access of sanctioned coverage and certainly spent a healthy amount of time spinning my wheels, contemplating the next step. But in an ever-expanding Oscar blogosphere, a stranglehold on what the movement needed in recent years has been as elusive as ever.

In 2006, I personally envisioned the next step as a broader, more ambitious experience. Expanding a blog into something more in tune with a former brainchild (Oscar Central) seemed the way to go, so I lifted In Contention out of its Blogger roots and settled back into the dot com game.

The first step was to bring in Gerard Kennedy to cover the technical races in an effort to widen the net we were tossing. I remain prouder of Gerard’s contribution to the site than even my own efforts because his work represents a dedication to the individuals who don’t get the big headlines, but sit biting their nails, waiting on envelopes to be opened the same as the most recognizable of stars. Gerard continues his weekly grind this season with an even greater understanding of his role, and I still consider “Tech Support” to be the crown jewel of In Contention’s Oscar coverage.

But as last year’s crazy season came to a close, I slowly began to realize the site was biting off a lot. It wasn’t necessarily more than it could chew, but it was a level of coverage I saw as perhaps a bit too comprehensive in its original content and point of view. Film reviews, twice-a-week Oscar columns, numerous interviews, event coverage, blog postings, some random, some thoughtful – where was it going to end? And to what purpose could such a site be beneficial with a singular voice guiding the ship?

This year, and at the risk of personal burnout, the instinct was to add two – count ‘em – two new chefs to the ever-expanding kitchen. Brian Kinsley did a fine job of acclimating the site to the new season with a weekly script review column, while John Foote took over Gerard’s former duties as our festival correspondent in Toronto. Both stints were brief and served a fitting and meaningful purpose where awards coverage is concerned, but I felt In Contention was beginning to drown in its own ambition. This might explain a rather ambivalent approach to the then upcoming weekly coverage as August progressed.

In the plainest of terms, the site I have envisioned for a number of years – I will freely and humbly admit – I don’t have the means or the time to develop. There is still an ideal, I believe. An awards coverage site with a pool of journalists (rather than sideline pundits), an array of opinionated talent and a dedication to comprehensive analysis is still floating in the ether and can still happen. Many an outlet, from the Los Angeles Times to Movie City News, continues to dance with the issue, but it simply hasn’t fully formulated yet. In Contention has been a sturdy effort on my part that, I’m happy to see, has been a welcome resource in the community. But “the next step” may in fact be something more collective in its philosophy.

When I first began my online presence, there were three sites featuring a specific dedication to the film awards season. Today there are dozens, and as traditional media continues to dive in, as Oscar advertising continues to inflate revenue, the cat is (and has been) out of the bag. But in this ego-driven corner of the blogosphere, no one seems to be willing to be the conveyor of that limitless coverage (though The Envelope seems to be throwing a lot at the wall to see what sticks this season...I commend them). That ever elusive next step is, in fact, a site that expedites the online Oscar-watching experience.

And so, I come to the long-broken news that I will take on a new role as editor of Variety’s freshly conceived Oscar blog, “Red Carpet District.” The blog will go live this Thursday, October 25, to coincide with the launch of the trade’s Award Central section. Variety’s vision is one of consolidation, and as an audience, you can expect something in the way of a one-stop shop for the film awards frenzy, the Frankenstein for which some of us must certainly take responsibility. We will be linking to the stories and items we feel represent the savviest of analysis and coverage, while I will provide the mortar of original content to fill in the gaps. It is an exciting new enterprise and in some ways I believe I will enjoy straddling the line of commentator and observer more than you might expect. Accusations of hubris aside (though still taken to heart), I consider myself more than capable of learning from the film awards watching community as a whole, and so I very much look forward to serving this new and unique role.

To avoid repetition, I think it only reasonable that I scale back my efforts here at In Contention considerably. My weekly Oscar columns will be discontinued. Any points I would have made therein will be made at “Red Carpet District.” I may, however, jump in from time to time with this exclusive column or that. The site will otherwise remain the home of my personal Oscar predictions as they are something of a commodity to me and a reason for many to come to the site. The main page will likely begin to resemble a blog dedicated to justification of prediction choices, announcing changes and spinning those speculative wheels for old time’s sake. Interviews and reviews will continue to be a fixture, though blog activity may or may not cease on my end. That portion of the site will remain a playground for Gerard and Brian as they see fit.

Speaking of Gerard, his contribution will go forward as is. “Tech Support” is the most unique aspect of available Oscar coverage, and you’d better believe I’ll be linking to his work shamelessly at “Red Carpet District.”

So, there we have it. I’ve enjoyed the heavy workload of In Contention the last two years and it is with a mixture of intrigue and sadness that I rein in the ambition. But I think you will all enjoy what we’re working on at Variety and, if anything, we’ll all finally have a true hub for film awards coverage linking us to the stories we want to peruse.

To the readers: happy reading. To the bloggers: happy blogging. And to the season’s contenders: happy contending. We’re all taking the next step together.

This week’s charts:

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts

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

Previous Oscar Columns:
10/15/07 - "The Oil Man vs. the Demon Barber?"
10/08/07 - "Clean-up on Aisle September"
10/01/07 - "Still Anybody's Game"
09/17/07 - "Post-Toronto Update"
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

Monday night, I was subjected to “Elizabeth: The Golden Age,” where Cate Blanchett did a whole lot of showboating and Shekhar Kapur messed with history way too much. I found the result to be histrionic silliness. But I can’t fault Alexandra Byrne’s flawless costumes dawned by Blanchett and her co-stars.

Kapur’s film tells us a great deal about the category which awards costumes at the Academy Awards. First and foremost, having a respected costume designer on board is a major bonus. Alexandra Byrne has only worked on seven previous films, and has been, rather incredibly, nominated for three of them – “Hamlet,” “Finding Neverland” and the first “Elizabeth.” Not exactly a shabby resume. Seeing at least two perennial favorites among the nominees is commonplace.

The costume design category is also one which consistently awards the period piece. Period pieces have some advantage in a great number of categories. But Best Costume Design takes the cake. For the eleven years between 1995 and 2005, almost all nominees were period, with just a splattering of fantasy nominees. Admittedly, we saw two contemporary nominees last year (“The Queen” and “The Devil Wears Prada”), which I personally found very refreshing. But “The Devil Wears Prada” was ABOUT fashion design and “The Queen” costumed some of the most famous people in the world. I don’t see any films in a similar situation this year.

Not that Fox Searchlight’s “Juno” needs another champion in the mix, but this film is such a giant leap forward in artistic discipline from director Jason Reitman that I have to say something. And at the risk of drifting into hyperbole, I’ll keep it short.

“Juno” is the best comedy to hit screens in at least five years. I have to go back to “Punch Drunk Love” to find a laugher that is working with an equally impressive arsenal. While trying filmmakers continuously attempt to make the quirky significant (Wes Anderson), and still others strive too hard for stylized realism in their humor (Judd Apatow), Jason Reitman is making it look so easy it’s scary. And he’s doing it under the radar, if you can believe it. Everyone is so caught up in Diablo Cody’s admittedly adorable screenplay that the real story is getting lost in the mix: a filmmaker’s lightning-quick rise to a level of pretension-free control in the span of 18 months.

Everything you’ve read about Ellen Page is real. A star is born; a new and vibrant comedic sketch of a character enters the pantheon, etc. But any dissent you come across regarding the film’s Best Picture hopes is beyond me. When I tossed the film into my predicted five during the Toronto love-fest, it was admittedly sideshow guessing. But sitting there with happy man-tears constantly welling up in my eyes, hearing the unabashed adoration coming from others in the packed screening, it was enough to convince me that “Juno” is Searchlight’s heavy-hitter. Not “The Savages,” not “Once,” it’s all “Juno” – a film with more going for it, I would wager, than “Little Miss Sunshine” a year ago.

I can’t say enough about Page’s beautifully rendered portrayal, Michael Cera’s painfully touching support, Jennifer Garner’s best work to date and Jason Bateman’s convincing plight. Performances from J.K. Simmons and Allison Janey are just gravy on the top. So a SAG ensemble bid is well on its way. The editors will be on board when the ACE dishes out comedy achievements. Golden Globes? Absolutely. And, if it makes money, the PGA will follow suit. It’s a road paved with gold if the studio wants it. That’s all I’m saying.

A huge bravo to all involved. “Juno” is without a doubt one of the very best films of the year.

Stand back…you’re about to enter the depths of a speculation zone.

So I was in the midst of a conversation last week with a fellow Oscar blogger and we were tossing around thoughts on the Best Actor race. My feeling was that Daniel Day-Lewis, should the general positive steam continue to build for Paul Thomas Anderson’s “There Will Be Blood,” seems like the clear frontrunner to win (something I understand is strange to posit sight unseen, believe me). My argument, however, was, quite simply, who’s the competition?

For starters, it’s been nearly 20 years since “My Left Foot.” And Day-Lewis took some time off that would make the notion that “he already has an Oscar” somewhat moot. I also believe there could be left over sentiment for his clearly beloved performance in the clearly not beloved “Gangs of New York.” No other actor or performance seems to demand the award. But let’s look through them for the sake of argument…

Tom Hanks is still unseen in “Charlie Wilson’s War” beyond an aiming-for-the-box office trailer, but he’s also woefully miscast. I don’t think I’m alone in that opinion, but, we’ll let the performance speak for itself. Regardless, I don’t think it’s unfair to say that Hanks would have to put out career-best work at this stage to ever become anything other than a perennial nominee.

James McAvoy is a stellar young actor, one who has knocked two performances out of the park back to back in “The Last King of Scotland” and “Atonement.” However, as good and controlled as he is in the latter, I’m not sure it is enough to send shockwaves like Adrien Brody’s turn in “The Pianist.” It can be a little difficult to poke through as a younger male actor at the Oscars, and though it isn’t out of the realm of possibility, I think it’s asking a lot to hang the award on McAvoy’s shoulders right now.

If Denzel Washington gets nominated at all it’s going to be for “The Great Debaters,” a role looking more and more like Glenn Holland meets Norman Dale, rather than for the more expected turn in “American Gangster.” But a win six years ago (and two statues to his name) will be enough to keep him off the stage of the Kodak for some time.

Tommy Lee Jones could have posed a real threat if Paul Haggis’s “In the Valley of Elah” had been an across-the-board success. “Great but not great enough” seems to be keeping it out of Best Picture play, and therefore, seems to be muting what Jones could have done in the awards season with this performance. Still, the actor has a role in “No Country for Old Man” that continues to keep the fire going, and he has yet to win a lead statue. Something to consider, I’ll freely admit.

Elsewhere, it’s a mixed bag. Emile Hirsch is too young and not Earth-shattering enough in “Into the Wild.” Denzel Washington, as mentioned, is good but somewhat derivative in “American Gangster,” and I sense the Academy might be over it. Brad Pitt is phenomenal in “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford,” but are members going to sit through the film? Phillip Seymour Hoffman is having the year of his life, with two of his best performances in “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” and “The Savages,” but he just took the whole kit and caboodle two years ago. Ryan Gosling is a wunderkind to say the least, but winning for a character who falls in love with a blow-up doll (however touching the screenplay)?

Peripheral contenders seem to simply have too modest an amount of steam behind them. Khalid Abdallah is almost unwatchable in “The Kite Runner,” but so is the film. Perhaps the Academy will differ, but it’s not an awards-worthy turn regardless. Benicio Del Toro is well-received in “Things We Lost in the Fire,” but he’s not leaving a scorched path. Sam Riley could make a major play if the actors rally behind “Control” (and a SAG screening next week will begin to tell the tale there), but youth isn’t a commodity (see James McAvoy). John Cusack is overdue – it is written in stone – but the afterburners on “Grace is Gone” are silent right now – et cetera, et cetera.

So I came to Johnny Depp, who teams with Tim Burton for the 83rd time in “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.” I only two weeks ago decided to usher him back to my predicted line-up, mind you, but suddenly it seems like the sort of performance this year that could give Day-Lewis a real run for his money. Then my colleague noted, “Well, if you’re looking for SENTIMENT.”

So what about that? Johnny Depp is, after all, a widely respected actor. He finally got a nomination for a role any other actor would have been lambasted for even taking. He followed it up the very next year with a nod for a much less extravagant turn, proving that he can turn them on no matter what the level of showmanship. Could regard for his last two nominated performances (and keep in mind, the giant voting body of the Screen Actors Guild handed him their award in 2003) bolster support for a nominated turn in “Sweeney Todd?” And how wonderful would it be to see him take down the win under the direction of his consistent collaborator?

Naturally, we’re just spinning our wheels here, but something tells me this year’s Best Actor race could come down to these two gentlemen. The wrench in the works is that neither character is particularly loveable. We won’t get many heart-string tugs out of these films, and that is perhaps where Jones or Washington could come in to spoil the party (or John Cusack, if the Weinsteins get a campaign together that doesn’t resemble the fishiness of last year’s gamble on Sienna Miller).

I could be out to lunch on this and humbly accept that notion. But in any case, you are now leaving the speculative zone.

(No notes on the Oscar charts this week. It’s all a strange blur, for some reason, but I did take the plunge with the Weinstein hopeful “The Great Debaters” and added a slew of competitors to the supporting actress chart, noted dry territory.)

Next week: The (not so secret) announcement commeth.

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts

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

Previous Oscar Columns:
10/08/07 - "Clean-up on Aisle September"
10/01/07 - "Still Anybody's Game"
09/17/07 - "Post-Toronto Update"
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

I’ve got a lead actor piece slated for Monday with chart accompaniment, but I thought I’d interject some thoughts this weekend about a truly ghastly, thin, anorexic category – the Best Supporting Actress field.

No campaign is set in stone, mind you. All this talk of “Helena Bonham Carter is going lead” and the like is just that – talk. Studios are just now feeling their way and nothing should be taken to the bank until FYC ads are taken out in the trades. And even then, things can switch on you (like the campaigns of Ian McKellen and Naomi Watts in 2001). All of that having been said, looking at the field now, it’s pretty damn difficult to come up with a list of real potentials.

My chart on Monday will reflect a listing of Cate Blanchett (“I’m Not There”), Romola Garai (“Atonement,” and the only actress from that film with enough to really chew on), Amy Ryan (“Gone Baby Gone”), Julia Roberts (“Charlie Wilson’s War” – even with a small part, the campaign seems to be circling the wagons here) and Jennifer Jason Leigh (“Margot at the Wedding” – as if). Frankly, it was difficult after the first name because this category is the weakest it has been, potentially in the near decade I’ve been covering the Oscar season.

The “Atonement” crew has been getting good play for no real good reason for some time now. Each of the actresses hasn’t much to work with, and that goes for lead contender Keira Knightly as well. Saorise Ronan, the beneficiary of most early buzz, doesn’t do a whole lot with her brief first act stint beyond what is required of the character. Vanessa Redgrave is in and out, five minutes at best, spouting exposition – even if it’s done in that “I’m Vanessa Redgrave air, but nothing doing for an awards hopeful. Romola Garai is the only true possibility, and I have my doubts there, frankly. “Atonement,” mind you, isn’t the big, sweeping film some would have you believe. It aims at that target but is really in the realm of a smaller, tighter film than all of that. Anyway…

Warner Independent could push Charlize Theron in the supporting field for “In the Valley of Elah” and come up with something. Big Warner could try and make a move with Tilda Swinton in “Michael Clayton,” but I doubt it. Helena Bonham Carter is out of the mix (and is even getting bad worth of mouth in some quarters, regardless). What the hell else is there to work with here?? Jennifer Garner in “Juno?” Weird.

I suppose “Love in the Time of Cholera” is lurking, bringing with it Catalina Sandino Moreno and Giovanna Mezzogiorno. But there isn’t a lot of hope for that flick, believe it or not. Meryl Streep has thrown a lot at the wall this year, but the films aren’t good enough. The “Hairspray” girls are still a possibility and, my personal favorite, Marisa Tomei in “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” has her champions. But none – NONE of these performances has “the stuff” of guaranteed awards status, and that’s troubling.

Oh well, it’s off my chest now. But I had to say something, anything, about this rancid, vacant, trying category. Enjoy the weekend.

I love Charlie Chaplain. I really do. But was he ever wrong when he predicted that “talkies” were a fad that would quickly die out. Since “The Jazz Singer” revolutionized cinema eighty years ago with its addition of sound to a movie’s visuals, so much of filmmaking has been told by its audio elements.

There is a distinction between the “sound” awards awarded by the Academy. Best Sound Editing recognizes achievement in integrating effects – the artificially created “clinks, rustles and grunts” – into the overall soundtrack. Best Sound Mixing refers to the creation and integration of all aural elements – effects, dialogue, music and anything else heard in the film – into a soundtrack of appropriate volume and consistency. Up to three re-recording mixers and one production sound mixer are eligible to share this award.

“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” is the result of uncommon cinematic vision, in this case springing from the mind of filmmaker Julian Schnabel. As divisive a persona as his techniques could be construed, Schnabel is a consummate artist striving for vastly different things behind the camera than any of his contemporaries. In his latest effort, the director has created a menagerie that becomes that rare example of a film less impressive in the sum of its parts than it is in the analysis of each working component. It is masterful in ways it seems critical analysis has not yet considered.

Matthieu Amalric stars as Jean-Dominque Bauby, the publisher of “Elle” magazine who suffered a sudden stroke in 1995 that rendered him paralyzed but for one eye. Left with little more than his memories and his imagination, Bauby capitalized on a lingering book deal he had signed with a publisher and set about writing an autobiography. The account was dictated via a system in which he would blink his eye to corresponding letters of the alphabet, ultimately telling his tale from the prison of an immovable body – his “diving bell.” He lived to see the book’s publication before passing away a mere ten days later.

A guy blinking his life story – only Julian Schnabel could find something cinematic about that. And indeed he does.

Much of “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” is visually conveyed in a first person perspective that is equal parts claustrophobic and fascinating. While the effect instills a certain empathy in the viewer, it also allows for insight as Bauby’s thoughts are spoken by Amalric as if reverberating inside the character’s mind. It is also through this brazen panache that cinematographer Janusz Kaminski is given room to really experiment aside from his wonderful lighting in the more traditional sequences. I notice Gerard did not include Kaminski at all in his recent “Tech Support” column spotlighting the DPs of the season. That might prove a mistake as Kaminski’s work is essential to the artistry of the film.

Amalric is accompanied on screen by “Munich” co-star Marie-Josée Croze, as Henriette, one of Bauby’s nurses who concocts the dictation system. Emmanuelle Seigner is Céline, the mother of Bauby’s three children, and together with Croze, she offers a delicate feminine balance for Bauby’s internal, macho persona. But the real specter of delicacy is inherent in a two-scene performance by Max von Sydow as Bauby’s father, Papinou.

I don’t think I’ve seen a relationship so clearly and beautifully rendered in such a small amount of time in a long while. An initial encounter told in flashback with Bauby giving his father a shave – the last time he saw him before the stroke – provides deep context for a later encounter over the phone, during which Papinou can’t handle the pain of speaking to a son he knows cannot respond. “I miss you,” he tells Bauby, tears streaming down his eyes, sick with confusion. It’s one of the more powerful scenes of the year in the amount of emotion it generates, and given Amalric has little to do other than sit and stare at the telephone, the task is completely in Sydow’s hands. It could be affecting enough to generate a fair share of supporting actor votes come January.

With all this in mind, there is a living, beating heart beneath the surface of “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” that Schnabel seems paradoxically intent on containing as much as possible. Any time the viewer feels the blissful serenade of the film’s various episodic segments and musical interludes, the director cuts sharply away and to the next chapter, so to speak, as if he is unwilling to cajole or, like so many of Bauby’s fantasies, allow himself to stray from what is his subject’s unflinching predicament. It’s a form of honesty one has to appreciate when the risk of pandering is so prevalent.

Regarding the awards season, I have to say that Miramax seems to be four-square behind this film in the Oscar department – good. There is no question that the studio’s other major hopeful, “No Country for Old Men,” is a cold and empty experience, regardless of artistic merit captured here and there that might appeal to this branch or that. “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly,” however, is a piece of work that actually does something with its unavoidable chill-factor. It’s a smart, precise piece of filmmaking that knows how to make the most of an entirely un-cinematic situation. It also generates a genuine emotional response that will surely resonate with anyone who fears unfinished business with their loved ones. And who doesn’t cower at the potential regret of tomorrow in the face of taking today for granted?

(Getting this off before the weekend to clear some head space.)

I’ve spent the entire month having my mind torn apart by college and business deadlines alike, and the suffering seems to have been laid at the feet of – imagine this – film opinion and perspective. I haven’t gotten to a long-form review in some time, yet I have a back log of opinions awaiting some outlet – any outlet. And so today, in lieu of an Oscar column (though I do have some brief thoughts on the race), I thought I’d finally get to these films via short reviews. Apologies for truncating my thoughts in this manner, but it’s the only way I could get on the record before the maelstrom of October really kicks in (and indeed, as will be outlined later this month, the site is about to go through some changes).

But first…Oscar talk.

So I’m shaking things up in the charts this week. Questions are arising in my head that have heretofore been tucked away in the dark corners of my mind. Like is Julie Christie really assured a nod for what is the most sedate performance of the Best Actress contending slate? Can “Lust, Caution” make some power moves on more than a few categories, given relatively positive Academy response? Is “No Country for Old Men” getting too much prognostication play when, in fact, it’s simply a critical fave and not necessarily up the Academys alley?

But the biggest question of the moment - for me, anyway - seems to be what will happen to The Weinstein Company’s “The Great Debaters,” produced by Oprah Winfrey, directed by and starring Denzel Washington and, having been slated for a December 25 qualifying run, perhaps the film that will pop up onto everyone’s radars late into the game like “Letters from Iwo Jima” before it. “Hoosiers” seems to be the comparison of the moment. And the gears are already turning at the studio - be sure of that.

In any case, most of my ponderings can be assessed with the movement on the charts. Let’s get these brief thoughts out of the way, and then I can come to “Atonement” and “The Diving Bell and Butterfly” with reviews of substance later in the week.

“Lust, Caution” (***½)
Directed by Ang Lee

Absolutely one of the best films of the year, “Lust, Caution” might be Ang Lee’s most passionate artistic exercise to date. Tang Wei puts herself out there in a film debut that has to be considered one of the bravest performances of the year, while international star Tony Leung is stunning behind the veil of an unconcerned face, fire burning behind his eyes. The technical achievements across the board are rich and compelling, Alexandre Desplat’s trickling score taking top honors in this viewer’s opinion. Most surprising and important part of the equation: Focus Features understanding the thematic value of a number of risqué sex scenes and sticking with the NC-17 rating the MPAA handed the film. This one released over the weekend, so you can make your own mind up in due time.

“Michael Clayton” (***½)
Directed by Tony Gilroy

Another one releasing this past weekend, Tony Gilroy’s “Michael Clayton” is an interesting addition to 2007’s slate. Positioned as a thriller, wrapped in the wool of an ethical statement and yet something more personal and residual at its heart, the film showcases a fine, internalized performance from George Clooney. Tom Wilkinson is electric, if out of the picture too quickly, offering an opening monologue that tells the viewer to strap in. Gilroy is a fine first-time director, even if he has been more than privy to the Hollywood machine as a screenwriter. Equal parts Michael Mann and Sydney Pollock (the executive producer, who also stars), Gilroy’s directorial style is a penetrating one that will be fun to watch as he tackles more and more material. Check back Tuesday for an interview piece on Gilroy (who, given the state of the net surrounding his film’s release, is certainly making the rounds).

“No Country for Old Men” (**½)
Directed by Ethan Coen, Joel Coen

It’s a little difficult for me to buy what the Coen brothers are selling in “No Country for Old Men” like the rest of the critical community. It’s even more difficult for me to understand Oscar prognosticators anointing it with Best Picture potential when, while the critics are talking about it ceaselessly, the Academy members simply are not. In any case, two-thirds of “No Country for Old Men” is a great film, sporting a lead performance from Josh Brolin that is pitch-perfect. Javier Bardem is properly unsettling and outright sadistic as a serial killer traipsing about doing what he wishes, though the Coens spend a little too much time building the “he’s got the air gun again” sequence over, and over, and over again. Tommy Lee Jones, however, is the center of the film’s dishonesty and irritation. His is a fine performance, but the role here as in the Cormac McCarthy novel is an example of manifested ethos, yet the Coens seem to have bought into it far too much for their own good. What might have been poignant in doses comes off as bitterly unqualified for the most part, and ultimately, the film ends up achieving a fraction of what “Fargo” achieved eleven years ago. “No Country for Old Men” gets to be the bastard step child, as a result.

“Quiet City” (***½)
Directed by Aaron Katz

Any perceived bias aside (and indeed, I did not like the bulk of what Aaron produced when we were in college together), “Quiet City” is a wonderful snap-shot of life that balances the line of realism and fantasy breathlessly. Katz himself might not readily admit to the whimsical nature of his follow up to “Dance Party USA,” but he ought to embrace it nonetheless as it is a subtextual commentary on comfort, connection and desire. The director is working with real feelings and deeper meaning than David Gordon Green’s faux-Malickian hogwash, of that we can be certain. Where Katz has really lucked up (not to take credit away from the filmmaker, mind you) is in a magnetic portrayal from Erin Fisher that demands you fall in love with her from the start. Opposite Fisher, Cris Lankenau puts forth a depiction of buried angst doused in overly friendly nuance that is – shock and awe – believable and as far away from trying as a performance can get. The film is beautifully photographed by Andy Reed with interesting accompanying tunes from Keegan Dewitt throughout, but above all, “Quiet City” has convinced me, if no one else, that Aaron Katz will craft a real masterpiece in due time. Perhaps sooner rather than later.

“The Savages” (***½)
Directed by Tamara Jenkins

Phillip Seymour Hoffman is having a hell of a year in 2007. Two leading performances in “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” and “The Savages,” as well as an upcoming supporting turn in “Charlie Wilson’s War,” will go to great lengths to keep him in the spotlight for the next six months. It is in Tamara Jenkins’ measured look at dealing with an aging parent where Hoffman really gets to let the internal struggle boil, showing itself on the surface in ways much less fiery than his work on the Sidney Lumet film, but still as purposeful nonetheless. It’s Philip Bosco, however, who matches Tang Wei for bravery in “The Savages” by effortlessly portraying a man suffering from dementia and, in his few moments of clarity, dealing with the revelation that his children are placing him in a nursing home. The film is a delicate thing, perhaps not as emotionally sweeping as it might have been, but hitting a high mark regardless. Laura Linney offers another great turn, perhaps her best in a while, opposite Hoffman. Jenkins proves a steady hand and authoritative narrative style behind the camera. She’ll be one to watch.

Next week: The Oil Man vs. the Demon Barber?

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts

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

Previous Oscar Columns:
10/01/07 - "Still Anybody's Game"
09/17/07 - "Post-Toronto Update"
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

It is somewhat ironic that the Academy Award for art direction is not actually awarded to a film’s art director. Since Lyle R. Wheeler adopted the title “production designer” for his mammoth undertaking of supervising the set construction of “Gone with the Wind” almost seventy years ago, the name of the category has been a throwback to how art departments worked in the earliest days of cinema.

The production designer is the individual who is ultimately responsible for a film’s set design and its general artwork. This is the individual who ultimately receives the Oscar. The fact of the matter is that the set decorator – the individual responsible for filling up the production with specifics and props – shares the award. But primarily, one considers the production designer as responsible for a film’s sets.

This category is a haven for period and fantasy films. Designing the sets for worlds so far removed from our own is a dream for any production designer as they are given an opportunity to do something unique in the face of our typical day-to-day experience. “Amelie” is the only film nominated this decade that could realistically be described as contemporary. And even that is a fantastical film in a sense.

They're trying new thngs his year at the LA Times, like bringing in Pete Hammond to toss around thoughts like he did last year at Tom Tapp's HollywoodWiretap.com. Pete's work kicked off today with a general column boasting the clear thesis we've been tossing about for a few weeks now, that the studios are keeping their mouths shut this time rather than falling into "Dreamgirls" territory. "The cone is silent." Give it a look.

From yesterday.

More to come in this space.

Moving into October and out of the festival frame, the film awards landscape still looks to be a wide open skirmish. The only two films left unseen are Dreamworks’ “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street” and Universal’s “Charlie Wilson’s War,” but questions are finally being answered in other quarters as studios show their non-Toronto product.

Universal pulled “American Gangster” out and into the open two weeks ago, and though I found some considerable fondness for Ridley Scott’s effort, I have to say my opinion of the film has slipped a few notches in the interim. I’m also hearing an interesting amount of dissent that has me curious as to whether it can transcend the “commercial” label and make it into Best Picture contention like “The Departed,” “The Silence of the Lambs” and “The French Connection” before it.

Paramount Vantage, meanwhile, unveiled Paul Thomas Anderson’s “There Will Be Blood” to uproarious reception in Texas last week. “Citizen Kane” comparisons from more than one source have many believing it could have the stuff. Vantage has also been showing “The Kite Runner” here and there, which could still be their big awards hopeful as “There Will Be Blood” is reportedly a pretty dark experience. And there are still those at the studio who have a passion for Sean Penn’s “Into the Wild” and will likely see it through to the end of the season come hell or high water. But a Sophie’s choice might be in the mix.

But while all our attention is squared on these potentially obvious, “big” candidates, what about the little fish swimming deep that could poke through with the right amount of passion?

Sidney Lumet’s “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead” has a couple of performances front and center that could be argued as career bests for Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke. Hoffman is also on fire in Tamara Jenkins’ “The Savages,” a heart-felt effort that could strike a certain chord with the Academy demographic and tear Fox Searchlight’s attention away from their bevy of product somewhat.

“Lust, Caution” got some nasty early word of mouth before it went on to grab the top award in Venice. But the central performance from Tang Wei is one of the very best of the year and worth consideration to say the least. While Miramax is bowed up with “No Country for Old Men” – a film that has pulled the wool over the critical community’s eyes – they’re still allowing lots of attention for Julian Schnabel’s “The Diving Bell and Butterfly,” which has pulled considerable praise in various quarters and could be something to watch.

And as the butter of the season continues to be spread so thin and fair, what about early year hopefuls that still have a fighting chance? One could go all the way back to David Fincher’s “Zodiac” and Lasse Hallstrom’s “The Hoax” to find potential awards efforts poking around in a 2007 where all comers are apparently equal. Fox Searchlight is also more than aware of what could be made of Jon Carney’s “Once” and Adrienne Shelley’s “Waitress,” while early performances from Julie Christie (“Away from Her”), Marion Cotillard (“La Vie en Rose”) and Angelina Jolie (“A Mighty Heart”) are still more than in play.

Speaking of performances, Tom O’Neil has reported that Helena Bonham Carter will be campaigned as a lead in “Sweeney Todd,” which strikes me as a little foolish considering the Best Actress race was stacked heading into the season and looks to stay that way with the addition of Ellen Page (“Juno”). The supporting races, however, are woefully vacant of competition, a veritable playground for any studio to tease an otherwise questionable possibility (Hal Holbrook, Casey Affleck, Amy Ryan, Max von Sydow, etc.). Perhaps they’ll take note.

Elsewhere (literally), Jeff Wells broke the news that I teased here last week. I was going to wait a little longer before I dropped it, but oh well. I’ll get into it in a couple of weeks. Enjoy the chart update in the meantime.

(And I’m trying to make room and get to reviews of “Lust, Caution,” “Michael Clayton,” “No Country for Old Men” and “The Savages.” Bear with me.)

Main Category Charts
Technical Category Charts

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

Previous Oscar Columns:
09/17/07 - "Post-Toronto Update"
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