Are you a fan of In Contention?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
I know, I know, more column inches on the "Zero Dark Thirty" torture debate. But I'm leading with Andrew O'Hehir's piece because it's the most thoughtful, level-headed response I've read on the matter so far. He's a fan of the film -- most flatteringly, he compares it to the "complex historical fiction" of Dickens or Tolstoy --, but doesn't see that as any reason to assume it takes the morally "right" position. "Both interpretations can be simultaneously correct," he writes, "partly because it’s an unusually complicated work, partly because there are so many things we don’t know about the Bush administration’s notorious “detainee program,” and partly because art is an inherently amoral and ruthless enterprise, however much we may want to believe otherwise." Great stuff. [Salon]
A.O. Scott, Manohla Dargis and Stephen Holden post their annual ideal Oscar ballots. Among their points of agreement: "Amour" (plus its two leads) and "Zero Dark Thirty." Props for including Matthias Schoenaerts, Ms. Dargis, but he is not supporting. [New York Times]
Steve Pond crunches the numbers on the Academy's various voting branches -- reaching, among others, the conclusion that you only need 36 votes to nab a nomination from the cinematographers' branch. In case 36 of them are reading: Robbie Ryan for "Wuthering Heights," please. [The Wrap]
Jon Weisman considers the voters scrambling to see everything in time for the Academy's January 3 deadline, and joins many in asking: why the rush, Oscar? [Variety]
Adrian Curry's typically considered list of the year's best movie posters has some picks you definitely won't see coming. [MUBI]
Everything: Academy Awards
Latest news, photos, reviews, interviews, videos and more.