OVP: Best Adapted Screenplay
The Nominees Were...
Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, and Jim Rash, The Descendants
John Logan, Hugo
George Clooney, Grant Heslov, and Beau Willmon, The Ides of March
Steve Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin, and Stan Chervin, Moneyball
Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
My Thoughts: We're coming in on the home stretch here, and it's now time for the "Big 8" awards. I flipped a coin and we'll be starting in the adapted, rather than the original writing category. Original is generally my favorite of the two, but there were several scripts here that I agree with the Academy should be celebrated.
Perhaps the most surprising of the inclusions here was Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, not due to lack of quality, but because the film, released so late in the year, didn't have the Best Picture nomination to boost it, nor the marquee star quality of nominating George Clooney. The script is tight, though, and considering the many plot twists in the John Le Carre novel from which it is based, it's very easy to navigate through. The film's dialogue is sharp and crisp, and the conversations between each of the actors is dripping with paranoia, which is appropriate since everyone is continually backstabbing everyone else. Honestly, aside from acquiring the rhythm at the beginning of the film (there are a lot of characters, and a lot of recognizable, but not "name" recognizable, British character actors to sort through), there is nothing to complain about. And kudos to whomever it was who decided to pair some of those juicy lines about "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier," with the crisp, doom-filled voice of John Hurt.
You'll be forgiven if you didn't know that George Clooney was nominated not once, but twice last year, as he kind of snuck under the radar with his (along with Heslov and Willmon's) work in The Ides of March. This is probably because this film, which at one point during the year seemed like a potential Oscar behemoth, came and went without much of a trace. This is likely due to the teetering pace of what should be a daunting and fun political thriller. As a political junkie, I probably liked this film more than most, but even I can admit there's faults in the pacing, and while the dialogue is tight (and that final scene between Clooney and Gosling is electric), the quick descent into anarchy seems a bit too convenient, and not quite believable in a film determined for accuracy.
The film you do remember of Clooney's last year was a favorite in this category, and it has all those flourishes writers love to see on the big-screen: multiple characters dealing with lots of life-and-loss situations, long and altruistic monologues about family and morality, and of course, several death bed confessionals. As I've complained in other categories, I'm not a huge fan of this film, and those monologues come off more as preachy and clunky, rather than something that would naturally flow from someone's mouth. Payne is a good writer (see Sideways for a better example), and doesn't flop completely (that Judy Greer speech toward the end of the film is wonderful-Judy Greer, period, is wonderful in this movie), but I kept feeling like this film, about finding purpose in one's middle age, is missing a purpose of its own.
Moneyball also features a name brand writer in Aaron Sorkin, who was coming off his Oscar win just a year prior for The Social Network, and therefore had big shoes to fill. However, Sorkin knows a little something about continued excellent (Studio 60, aside), and gives heart-and-soul to what should be an overly jargon-y film about baseball stats. There's also a lot of chemistry in the characters and the interplay between them-Pitt and Hill get an excellent rhythm, and the old baseball managers get strong material to work with in the earlier scenes. It's not perfect-Sorkin's reliance on long, profound speeches tends to overshadow some of the scenes (particularly considering the chill nature of Pitt's character for most of the movie), but this was a worthy, though certainly not equal, successor to his Citizen Kane of Social Media the year prior.
Finally, we once again go to Hugo, getting his ninth mention in our 2011 recap. I feel like I'm running out of things to say about Hugo, but John Logan (who was also Marty's scribe for The Aviator), also knows his way around a typewriter, so I suppose I can throw him a few sentences worth of critique. Overall, Hugo's script is not its finest attribute-it is at its best whenever Ben Kingsley is delivering monologues, or when it is discussing films (this is, after all, the real reason Scorsese made the film-his love of movies of all eras is perhaps more of a passion than his gangster pictures), and those scenes spring forward more appropriately than the lost father scenes, which are fairly routine (and the Sacha Baron Cohen scenes look as if they were written for a Disney family film, and I mean that in the worst way possible).
You'll be forgiven if you didn't know that George Clooney was nominated not once, but twice last year, as he kind of snuck under the radar with his (along with Heslov and Willmon's) work in The Ides of March. This is probably because this film, which at one point during the year seemed like a potential Oscar behemoth, came and went without much of a trace. This is likely due to the teetering pace of what should be a daunting and fun political thriller. As a political junkie, I probably liked this film more than most, but even I can admit there's faults in the pacing, and while the dialogue is tight (and that final scene between Clooney and Gosling is electric), the quick descent into anarchy seems a bit too convenient, and not quite believable in a film determined for accuracy.
The film you do remember of Clooney's last year was a favorite in this category, and it has all those flourishes writers love to see on the big-screen: multiple characters dealing with lots of life-and-loss situations, long and altruistic monologues about family and morality, and of course, several death bed confessionals. As I've complained in other categories, I'm not a huge fan of this film, and those monologues come off more as preachy and clunky, rather than something that would naturally flow from someone's mouth. Payne is a good writer (see Sideways for a better example), and doesn't flop completely (that Judy Greer speech toward the end of the film is wonderful-Judy Greer, period, is wonderful in this movie), but I kept feeling like this film, about finding purpose in one's middle age, is missing a purpose of its own.
Moneyball also features a name brand writer in Aaron Sorkin, who was coming off his Oscar win just a year prior for The Social Network, and therefore had big shoes to fill. However, Sorkin knows a little something about continued excellent (Studio 60, aside), and gives heart-and-soul to what should be an overly jargon-y film about baseball stats. There's also a lot of chemistry in the characters and the interplay between them-Pitt and Hill get an excellent rhythm, and the old baseball managers get strong material to work with in the earlier scenes. It's not perfect-Sorkin's reliance on long, profound speeches tends to overshadow some of the scenes (particularly considering the chill nature of Pitt's character for most of the movie), but this was a worthy, though certainly not equal, successor to his Citizen Kane of Social Media the year prior.
Finally, we once again go to Hugo, getting his ninth mention in our 2011 recap. I feel like I'm running out of things to say about Hugo, but John Logan (who was also Marty's scribe for The Aviator), also knows his way around a typewriter, so I suppose I can throw him a few sentences worth of critique. Overall, Hugo's script is not its finest attribute-it is at its best whenever Ben Kingsley is delivering monologues, or when it is discussing films (this is, after all, the real reason Scorsese made the film-his love of movies of all eras is perhaps more of a passion than his gangster pictures), and those scenes spring forward more appropriately than the lost father scenes, which are fairly routine (and the Sacha Baron Cohen scenes look as if they were written for a Disney family film, and I mean that in the worst way possible).
Other Precursor Contenders: Whereas in the technical categories I was struggling to find precursors, we've now entered the "embarrassment of riches" portion of the write-ups, as there are far too many to choose from, so I'll just go with the big 3: the WGA, HFPA, and BAFTA. The WGA gave its trophy to The Descendants, and kicked out Tinker Tailor and The Ides of March in favor of the southern drawls of The Help and the mega-bestselling The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo adaptation. The HFPA, which combines its adapted and originals, went with Woody allen for the trophy, but did nominate Moneyball, The Ides of March, and The Descendants. Finally, BAFTA gave a trophy to Peter Straughan and the late Bridget O'Connor for their work in Tinker Tailor, and only decided to exclude Hugo, in favor of The Help.
Films I Would Have Nominated: It seems a damn shame that Steve Kloves never once received an Oscar nomination for the thankless task of adapting the Harry Potter films into the massive franchise that they are.
Oscar's Choice: Oscar loves his Best Picture wins, as well as the director consolation prize (we'll give it to you here instead of the category you probably want it for), and so they went with Payne, Faxon, and Dean Pelton for The Descendants.
My Choice: I hadn't actually ranked this lineup prior to writing this, so I'm surprised to find myself dueling between Moneyball and Tinker Tailor. I think I'd go with Tinker Tailor, a tighter and more difficult script to adapt. Aaron Sorkin follows, with The Ides of March, The Descendants, and Hugo bringing up the rear.
No comments:
Post a Comment