You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Best Adapted Screenplay' category.
I know 2008 is a distant (bad) memory, but much like last year’s Margot at the Wedding diatribe I wanted to circle back and get a few things off my chest. It’s funny how it worked out- this site managed five posts dedicated to the entire Best Picture slate (and none for The Reader or Benjamin Button) but got up multiple posts for films like The Wrestler, Happy-Go-Lucky, and The Visitor. We know how to be relevant, eh?
The Reader’s big category nods still bother me (to the extent that one can still be bothered by Oscar nominations in May), especially if it was at the expense of The Dark Knight or The Wrestler. It’s still a decent film but not all that effective at what it sets out to do.
Plus Kate Winslet is going for her third major award for her work in this film, as she is up for an MTV Movie award! And she’s competing against some familiar 2008 Oscar faces! She’s taking on Anne Hathaway again, though for Bride Wars instead of Rachel Getting Married. And Angelina Jolie- but for Wanted. Oh and Kristen Stewart for Twilight! Taraji P. Henson (Button) rounds out the list.
But let’s step back and reflect on this again: The Reader has been nominated for an MTV Movie award (but will lose to Twilight)! Its themes clearly resonate with the tween set.
ANYWAY
To me, the film has three distinct elements: the relationship between Hannah (Kate Winslet) and Michael (David Kross and Ralph Fiennes), the implications of Hannah’s involvement in the Holocaust, and the power of literature. Apparently the Weinsteins tried to play down the pedophiliac aspect but to me it was the best part of the film. Their awkward relationship, the way he becomes totally involved in her, and the repercussions that last for decades all really grabbed me. A sexual relationship with an older woman at the age of 15 isn’t going to affect every kid for the rest of his life but it’s entirely likely that it could. By young adulthood Michael is distant in all his social relationships. And when he is unexpectedly confronted with Hannah’s past it’s devastating.
The Holocaust elements have some good ideas. Who do we blame individually when a whole society commits and atrocity? And how does that society move on? It’s a fascinating question that helps propel the film even when it falters. The line from Michael’s classmate about how Hannah’s trial is proceeding only because a victim wrote a book about her crimes – that this is selective prosecution – is brilliant and I was dismayed when the film didn’t dig much deeper. But then Michael’s trip to a concentration camp completely crosses the line into Holocaust porn, one of the most egregious examples I’ve ever seen.
And then there’s the whole message about literature and literacy that couldn’t have fallen more flat. My discussion about this will go at the end due to spoilers, but suffice it to say it nearly entirely killed the movie for me. I couldn’t have cared less about the bond of literature between Hannah and Michael.
Quick Oscar notes. Kate Winslet is terrific and it’s nice she finally got her win. She’s excellent here though I wouldn’t have voted for her. I hope her win doesn’t go down as one of those “make up” or “lifetime” Oscars but it may since she was better in every other film I’ve seen that she’s been nominated for. I loved David Kross, who learned English for the role. He would have made an excellent supporting actor nomination. The picture, director, and adapted screenplay nominations are all hogwash. Cinematography is a fine nomination, especially since Roger Deakins needs a nom every year, right?
The end here is spoilery, but let’s face it if you haven’t seen The Reader by now you aren’t going to. You probably forgot about its existence.
It’s amusing that the “big secret” of the film is not that Hannah was involved in the Holocaust, as I had assumed walking in (in which case it would have been a horribly kept secret). Instead it is that she is illiterate. So. What. The film has gall to try to explain some of Hannah’s crimes using her illiteracy: note how she never would have taken the job with the SS if she hadn’t have been promoted at an earlier job to a position that required reading skills. If you want to make a film about an individual’s culpability in the midst of a civilization committing a terrible atrocity then do it- it could be very interesting. But literacy couldn’t be more irrelevant. Does her inability to read mitigate or exacerbate Hannah’s crimes in any way? Of course not.
And then she learns to read! Hooray! What redemption! Except that it matters not at all. Y’know, because of the Holocaust and all. Here’s a hint: if you’re going to make a film about the redemptive power of literature, DON’T REDEEM THE HOLOCAUST! Redemption from Holocaust requires a lot more than reading.
But Hollywood is self-centered likes to be reminded of the Importance of Art so it ate this film up. And I’ll stop before this turns into a post appropriate for the mouth-breathers at Big Hollywood.
I can appreciate a film constructed around a concept, but to work that film better nail the intended concept. Doubt is, unsurprisingly, about doubt and as such should give the viewer a lot to ponder about doubt. However I, when enveloped in the world of Doubt, doubted the importance of the doubt portrayed, and I seriously doubt that was the intent.
It won’t be too long before the discussion grows too spoilery and I’ll have to shove it all after the jump so let’s get the Oscar stuff out of the way. Doubt tallied four acting nominations since it is a Very Serious Acting Movie. Meryl Streep’s Sister Aloysius, headmistress at a Catholic school in 1960s the Bronx, believes Philip Seymour Hoffman’s Father Flynn has entered into an inappropriate relationship with a young pupil. Amy Adams’s Sister James brings the initial allegation to Aloysius and feels torn between the two as Aloysius pursues him without firm evidence. Viola Davis has a couple emotional scenes as the potential victim’s mother with a shocking agenda.
Streep is sometimes dead-on and sometimes a little hammy. She is always a force on the screen, however, even when I wondered why something was being played up so dramatically. I liked Hoffman, as I usually do. He imparts a lot of humanity into a character who we are led to believe may have done something quite terrible. Even at his darkest moments I felt like I’d enjoy having a drink with him or even would have liked him as a teacher. Davis’s brief appearance seems to have moved many people though I’m not sure I would have made any special note of it without the Oscar hype. I think maybe part of the performance was lost on me since the substance of her scenes was occupying me, and not usually in a good way (more on that later). And Adams, well, as I said in one of our nomination prediction posts I usually enjoy her but this time she was just one-note and chirpy. What worked so well in Enchanted is now growing stale, between this and Miss Pettigrew Lives For a Day. She seemed to just get swept up in this wave of acting nominations for the film because I don’t think she contributes much to her character, and neither she nor her character contributes much to the film.
As for everything else, it failed to sneak into Best Picture or Director, thankfully. It’s Adapted Screenplay nod is pretty weak considering it probably took The Dark Knight’s spot. (By the way, writer/director John Patrick Shanley’s only other film? Joe Versus the Volcano!) That was the end of its Oscar journey, but it is very effective in transporting the viewer to another time. I’ve heard several comments, including from my mother, about how brilliantly it recreates the world of a Catholic school at that era down to the smallest detail, so some credit must be due in areas such as cinematography, costume, and art direction even if those nominations failed to materialize.
And truth be told it’s a pretty good movie. The plot is interesting and naturally dramatic. The setting and peek into the Catholic church at a time of pretty dramatic institutional change are interesting. The characters are really great and fleshed-out, especially Aloysius and Flynn. Doubt has a clear objective, however, and it doesn’t meet it. A film built on a central thesis has trouble succeeding if that thesis fails, no matter how great the periphery elements are. And so it works in a way, but not in the intended way.
I know the fellow Grouches I’ve discussed this with disagree with me, but I think a significant amount of people who see Doubt are going to leave the theater thinking it’s a film about (spoiler time- continue on after the jump) Read the rest of this entry »
Earlier this week I was talking with Adam about why Doubt didn’t do much for me. Not that I’m intelligible to begin with, but I made a complete hash of my thoughts. Which sorta trashed my plans to just copy the conversation into here. Instant post, just add water. So my new plan is to ramble for awhile and see what happens. I can’t see any flaws.
I don’t think it is presumptuous to suggest “doubt” the concept, is supposed to be an integral part of Doubt the movie. Did Philip Seymour Hoffman’s priest character engage in inappropriate relations with a student? Meryl Streep as the head nun sure seems pretty positive he did, with scant evidence to back it up. Amy Adams’s naive nun teeters back and forth on the fence. And the child’s mother, as played by Viola Davis, prefers not to think about anything which could derail her son from getting through the next few months. So, fine, we have different levels of doubt, and the impact it has on decision-making.
But my fundamental problem with the film is a lack of development, a failure to communicate the so what. Fairly early on it becomes clear where each character stands, save for the one bit at the end I won’t spoil, but is too little too late. Really, it seems like the script started out as a two minute sketch, where Adams says, “I don’t know if he did or didn’t do it.” Then Streep says, “Oh, I know he did it.” Adams replies, “How do you know?” and Streep answers, “I just do.” Then Hoffman says, “This is ridiculous, why are you doing this.” Rinse and repeat.
Well the nominations have been announced and those looking for surprises are happy this morning. The Grouches did get at least one nasty surprise.
Dark Knight Debacle
I was expecting the Academy to screw up and skip over Dark Knight for Best Picture. I thought Christopher Nolan had a better shot at Director. But the huge surprise was no Adapted Screenplay nomination. Four of the five Best Picture nominees were nominated in that category with the fifth slot going to Doubt. That’s a pretty shoddy film to be passed over for.
On the other hand, it got nominated in every technical category it was eligible for besides Score and Costume for a total of 8 nominations (including Supporting Actor Heath Ledger).
The Winslet Conundrum
Kate Winslet was aiming for Lead Actress in Revolutionary Road and Supporting in The Reader despite both roles probably being lead. She won these categories at the Globes. But the Academy puts her in the Lead role for The Reader and nothing for Road.
So we can play the what if game. Rules in the acting categories state an actor cannot: a) be nominated more than once in the same category, nor b) be nominated twice for the same role. If those rules were removed I would not be surprised if Winslet qualified for Lead for both roles AND Supporting for The Reader. When something like this happens the Academy goes with the role that got the most support and that apparently was Lead for The Reader.
Hooray for Little Movies!
My happiest moment came with the announcement of Richard Jenkins for Actor in The Visitor. Melissa Leo also managed an Actress nod for Frozen River when it seemed like her chances were fading. The biggest out of nowhere surprise may be that film’s Original Screenplay nomination.
Leo’s inclusion may have meant Sally Hawkins’s exclusion for Happy-Go-Lucky but that film still managed an Original Screenplay nod. And that interesting category ALSO includes the wonderful In Bruges. Plus WALL-E, which no one would call a little movie. Those interesting nominations pushed out films like Vicky Cristina Barcelona and Burn After Reading, however.
Long shots Darren Aronofsky and the film itself for Best Picture didn’t pan out, but at least Marisa Tomei was able to join co-star Mickey Rourke as an acting nominee for The Wrestler. That’s great, though the film really should have gotten a screenplay nod. And Bruce Springsteen’s exclusion for Song is downright confounding.
Other Surprises
I’m not complaining, but it was widely expected Dev Patel to get a Supporting Actor nomination for Slumdog Millionaire and he did not. Instead Michael Shannon from Revolutionary Road snuck in from way back in the pack to give the film its only major nomination.
Another puzzling exclusion was Waltz with Bashir in the Animated Feature category. The animated, foreign-language documentary was nominated for Foreign Language Film and ineligible for Documentary Feature. Kung Fu Panda and Bolt join WALL-E as Animated Feature nominees. After the near unanimous love for the film its absence is quite surprising.
So Jared got his wish for some surprises but managed to be nearly completely wrong in his predictions.
Some other prediction notes after the jump. Read the rest of this entry »
Going into this year’s Oscar season, if I had to pick one contender I least wanted to see, I’d imagine it would have been Frost/Nixon in a runaway. Because going into the movie, I’d probably have called screenwriter Peter Morgan a hack. I felt like I’d given the man a fair deal, having seen The Last King of Scotland, The Queen, and The Other Boleyn Girl (Morgan co-wrote the first and has sole credit on the latter two). The Last King of Scotland was a somewhat tolerable movie. I know some people liked or even loved The Queen, but they happen to be exceedingly wrong. And as I may have mentioned before, I think Morgan must possess some sort of unholy power if he can turn a movie starring Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson into a clunker of a snoozefest.
With that on the table, I found I actually kinda sorta liked Frost/Nixon. Not in the top of the charts sense, more in that it is probably in the top quarter or so of movies I’ve watched this year. Maybe it was because Morgan first wrote it as a play, but I think what worked was the dynamic between interviewer Frost (Michael Sheen) and Nixon (Frank Langella). Everything else, perhaps, falls fairly flat, so it is fortunate the movie spends a good chunk of time (though not nearly enough) on the battle between the two men.
Nixon certainly views it as a competition. He looks forward to engaging Frost in a duel of wits. And as the interview progresses, he gloats over how he is ahead on points. Indeed, it may have been Brian who called it one of the best sports movies of the year. And it certainly has most of the trappings of a sports movie. Scrappy underdog with his small band of supporters who no one believes in up against an overconfident, yet intelligent foe with a sniveling henchman in a title bout that looks all but lost until the very end. Sure, the hero gets the hot chick a little early and we may have been lacking a montage, but otherwise we are pretty much there.
To Morgan’s credit, he clearly tries to add texture and depth to characters and situations, where subtlety is not necessarily a desired trait in a sports flick. Nixon, for example, is not the typical villain. I’d argue he’s portrayed in a rather sympathetic light. Sure, he may get a little cocky at times, and he makes the inevitable fatal slip-up, but as a sharp-witted old man, he never comes across as malicious. The only two characters to actively loathe him are awed when they meet the former President in person. But again, most interesting is how Frost views him. For most of the movie, Frost doesn’t view Nixon as an antagonist, really. Frost seems to think Nixon is a curosity, but he’s only ever gets even slightly intimidated by Nixon on the eve of their final interview.
Frost is the weaker of the two main characters. I think it is because for the first chunk of the movie Nixon isn’t his opponent. Instead, he’s fighting the more vague battle to first get the interview, and then get financing and a network to air the show. Which isn’t terribly interesting, because it isn’t detailed very well and we aren’t given very much of a chance to see its impact on Frost. It is only when he finally turns to focus on Nixon that the potential of the movie starts to shine through.
I’d been eagerly anticipating Slumdog Millionaire for some time. Normally I try to temper such expectations, but heck, last year Juno would have been my preseason favorite and it ended up one of my top films of the year. If we catalogued such things, Slumdog Millionaire would have been my preseason pick this year. Unfortunately, I would have picked incorrectly.
I did like the movie, and I’d feel comfortable recommending it to just about anyone. Structuring the film around an episode of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire framed things nicely. Maybe not the most sophisticated of techniques, but one still inspired nonetheless. Along with Quiz Show, Starter for Ten (like I’ll ever get off that horse), it forms a nice triumvirate of movies with a trivia game show as at least a subplot, and I think I speak for all bar trivia-goers in suggesting that Hollywood would do well to churn out a few more.
Mostly, though, I just don’t have anything to say about the film. It didn’t affect me as much I thought (or hoped) it would. The central romance was fine, but I don’t think Simon Beaufoy (the screenwriter) or Danny Boyle and Loveleen Tandan (the co-directors) did a great job establishing the connection between Jamal and Latika. A few more shared scenes wouldn’t have hurt, perhaps. To me, it seems that Jamal longs for Latika because she’s the only girl he’s ever met. And Latika wants to be with Jamal because…he’s on the outside? It isn’t entirely clear.
The film doesn’t really have a main character, not if you count current, younger, and youngest Jamal as separate characters. Which makes for an interesting ensemble. But, emblematic of the movie as a whole, most of these characters deserve to be better fleshed out. Jamal’s brother Salim, for example, is barely sketched out in all his incarnations. And really, Salim’s actions drive the plot at least as much as those of Jamal. But the reasons for Salim’s pivotal shifts tended to be too subtle. Latika herself is more of an object for Jamal than a filled-out character. I did, however, really like the game show host, and thought his character was very well done.
In a nutshell, the movie just felt a little too distant, too hesitant to starkly dive into anything. I found it too muted to really blow me away. That’s not to suggest I found the movie anything less than enjoyable. I just didn’t think it managed to break through and become something special or memorable.
A few side notes: John and I were wondering if there’s some sort of law requiring Irrfan Khan to be in every movie with a U.S. wide release and is set in India. Not that it would be a problem, because he’s pretty great. Just curious. Also, I think Slumdog Millionaire just adds further proof to the notion that every movie would be better if it added a song and dance number. And Freida Pinto is really pretty. Just throwing that out there.
And finally, I’m curious to see if Dev Patel ends up with a Supporting Actor nomination. Going for him is the movie’s current status as a seeming near-lock to get nominated (and possible favorite status to win the whole shebang) and the lack of any other actor from the movie to nominate. There’s also a relative dearth of name actors and juicy roles under consideration. (The Golden Grouches underground campaign for Bill Irwin notwithstanding.) The catch may be that his is a sort of nontraditional supporting character, in that the movie is really about him. Additionally, Jamal’s character traits are more those of a main character (likable, gets the girl in the end, plucky, underdog). Could voters not vote for him, thinking he belongs in the best actor category, and instead go with someone in a more standard supporting role, like James Franco or Eddie Marsan?
The heavy hitters of this year’s Oscars have just started passing through town, so I can’t really compare Slumdog Millionaire to other Oscar bait. In a sense, I feel the same about the film as I did about The Departed. Both are perfectly fine movies, but I don’t really understand how anyone could consider them the best of anything.
The Grouches have plowed their way through all of the films nominated for the big eight awards. Now we make the case for which film or performance we WANT to win. Doesn’t mean we think it will win or even have a shot at winning. But if we had a vote on the nominees, here’s who we would pick, and why:
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY NOMINEES: Away from Her, Atonement, The Diving Bell and The Butterfly, No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood
There Will Be Blood tells the story of…well…what, exactly? It isn’t really the story of an oil well/reserve, or the town in which it resides. Though both certainly figure prominently. The easy argument is that it is the story of Daniel Plainview and his relationship to the wells and town. Maybe, but the tacked-on feeling of the ending aside, I’m not quite sure that relationship is ever adequately described. TWBB is a sprawling effort of a movie, and if not for the magnetic performances of Paul Dano and Daniel Day-Lewis, its meaning would have been much more pronounced.
Recent Comments