Looks like a lens needed a cleaning!!

I noticed that last night too. I saw it a few times, how in a production this big could something like that slip by?

That was the least of my problem with this movie though...

The Fighter/Firth/Kidman/Bale/Weaver

It was done on purpose. This movie was made in Todd-AO, which is rather like Cinerama with one projector instead of three, and intended to give a "you are there" quality. It was meant to be shown on a curved screen, though not as huge as the one used for Cinerama.

http://www.in70mm.com/todd_ao/index.htm

While watching the film I noticed it too. But I did see a pattern because it's always on the location-shots that there's dirt on the lens. I don't really think it's so much because of any artistic choice. It's more that while in a controlled studio environment you can clean and keep the lenses tip-top and that's where the highest regarded crews worked, along with the stars and such.

Inserts, location-shooting and the likes where (and still are) often relegated to people that moved fast and got the shots done rather than stop to clean after each take. This is just to keep the production as efficient as possible. Because, the next setup is probably miles away and the schedule is cramped to keep the budget in check.

It wouldn't surprise me if the second-unit crews were just handed notes on the shots needed and the film-cans and told not to dillydally. ;)

Yes, I noticed that in several scenes. In my own personal opinion, I don't think this movie deserved it's Best Cinematography Oscar. Some of the photography was nice but as far as beautifully shot, "War and Peace" and "The King and I" maybe even "The Ten Commandments" were more visually stunning than this movie. That's just me though.

I did enjoy the film though.

yeah, that definitely wasnt done on purpose