OVP: Best Original Screenplay (2016)
The Nominees Were...
Taylor Sheridan, Hell or High Water
Damien Chazelle, La La Land
Yorgos Lanthimos & Efthimis Filippou, The Lobster
Kenneth Lonergan, Manchester by the Sea
Mike Mills, 20th Century Women
Damien Chazelle, La La Land
Yorgos Lanthimos & Efthimis Filippou, The Lobster
Kenneth Lonergan, Manchester by the Sea
Mike Mills, 20th Century Women
My Thoughts: We're heading right into the Original Screenplay race here, which unlike the Adapted Screenplay field, actually found some room for a couple of movies that weren't nominated for Best Picture (Hacksaw Ridge ended up being the only Best Picture nominee not to be cited for a writing trophy). As a result, we get two movies in this slate that not only have been under-discussed, but are getting their only nominations here. I'd normally start with them, but let's finish with them instead, d'accord?
Musicals are notoriously bad at getting cited for screenwriting awards. This decade, major Oscar contenders like Moulin Rouge! and Dreamgirls scored in a variety of places, but couldn't get in for writing, and La La Land's nomination highlights why. Musicals are a suspension of belief, and while they can be a source of plum dialogue, they often require the viewer to gloss over or dismiss things that feel just convenient for the plot (like the multiple chance meetings in La La Land) or cliche (this is hardly breaking ground in terms of new plotting). Combined with a plot that largely relies on a white man to explain jazz (and never entirely jumps past the problematic aspects of it), and a side story with John Legend that feels totally unnecessary to the film, and you have possibly the weakest of La Land's nominations outside of Sound Editing.
A considerably better citation would be Manchester by the Sea, written by Kenneth Lonergan, who found such quite familial strength with You Can Count on Me sixteen years prior. The film's script is about quiet moments, and risks. Think of the big scene between Michelle Williams & Casey Affleck, and how even an errant word was going to take away from the desperation of that scene, the need to "return to normal" in a way that a couple who have lost children in such a tragic way simply cannot-it's breathtaking. The film meanders, and tries to accomplish too much with side stories (really they should just stick to Lee, Patrick, & Randi's connections with each other, for my taste), but when it's at its top it's glorious.
Hell or High Water is in a similar situation, though it doesn't have the same actors elevating its work (these aren't bad actors, but Hedges/Affleck/Williams are the rare trio that all deserved their Oscar nominations, and thus the chemistry is off-the-charts). Hell gets a few truly great scenes, particularly toward the end (one where a major character dies, and the scene that comes later that's a fallout between two of the major players), but the scenes leading up to it aren't as crisp. Bridges, always just splendid, gets saddled with a cliche and makes it somewhat his own, but his character gives the impression that the writing doesn't care about these characters equally, which is a problem considering how important his Marcus is to the conclusion of the picture.
Which leads us to the two non-Best Picture nominees. Of the two, I preferred The Lobster. The movie is by-far the most creative of the films nominated for any screenwriting trophy this year. The plot is well-constructed, bizarre, and gives us grounds to have some truly odd conversations. This isn't always a good sign (odd can just be odd, not great), but it works here. The script occasionally becomes violent without much payoff (this is an issue with Lanthimos' films in general), but that's a small price to pay for something so inventive & ingenious. Lanthimos remains one of the bravest writers in the business, and someone who is willing to try a new idea even if other directors would throw the script on its bum.
The final nomination is 20th Century Women, which nearly won Annette Bening a nomination but couldn't quite get there. The film is inventive, in a similar way to Lobster, with some fantastic lines for Bening & Greta Gerwig to read, but it isn't quite as tight as Lobster, and meanders too much for my taste. This is a movie that's more about mood and feeling than plot, which can be marvelous if you connect to it, but I didn't, and it doesn't feel like a universal story (even though it's trying to be)-the film is specific to a time-and-place, and doesn't age well in my memory. It doesn't have that same sense of "wow" that Lobster did the first time I viewed it.
Musicals are notoriously bad at getting cited for screenwriting awards. This decade, major Oscar contenders like Moulin Rouge! and Dreamgirls scored in a variety of places, but couldn't get in for writing, and La La Land's nomination highlights why. Musicals are a suspension of belief, and while they can be a source of plum dialogue, they often require the viewer to gloss over or dismiss things that feel just convenient for the plot (like the multiple chance meetings in La La Land) or cliche (this is hardly breaking ground in terms of new plotting). Combined with a plot that largely relies on a white man to explain jazz (and never entirely jumps past the problematic aspects of it), and a side story with John Legend that feels totally unnecessary to the film, and you have possibly the weakest of La Land's nominations outside of Sound Editing.
A considerably better citation would be Manchester by the Sea, written by Kenneth Lonergan, who found such quite familial strength with You Can Count on Me sixteen years prior. The film's script is about quiet moments, and risks. Think of the big scene between Michelle Williams & Casey Affleck, and how even an errant word was going to take away from the desperation of that scene, the need to "return to normal" in a way that a couple who have lost children in such a tragic way simply cannot-it's breathtaking. The film meanders, and tries to accomplish too much with side stories (really they should just stick to Lee, Patrick, & Randi's connections with each other, for my taste), but when it's at its top it's glorious.
Hell or High Water is in a similar situation, though it doesn't have the same actors elevating its work (these aren't bad actors, but Hedges/Affleck/Williams are the rare trio that all deserved their Oscar nominations, and thus the chemistry is off-the-charts). Hell gets a few truly great scenes, particularly toward the end (one where a major character dies, and the scene that comes later that's a fallout between two of the major players), but the scenes leading up to it aren't as crisp. Bridges, always just splendid, gets saddled with a cliche and makes it somewhat his own, but his character gives the impression that the writing doesn't care about these characters equally, which is a problem considering how important his Marcus is to the conclusion of the picture.
Which leads us to the two non-Best Picture nominees. Of the two, I preferred The Lobster. The movie is by-far the most creative of the films nominated for any screenwriting trophy this year. The plot is well-constructed, bizarre, and gives us grounds to have some truly odd conversations. This isn't always a good sign (odd can just be odd, not great), but it works here. The script occasionally becomes violent without much payoff (this is an issue with Lanthimos' films in general), but that's a small price to pay for something so inventive & ingenious. Lanthimos remains one of the bravest writers in the business, and someone who is willing to try a new idea even if other directors would throw the script on its bum.
The final nomination is 20th Century Women, which nearly won Annette Bening a nomination but couldn't quite get there. The film is inventive, in a similar way to Lobster, with some fantastic lines for Bening & Greta Gerwig to read, but it isn't quite as tight as Lobster, and meanders too much for my taste. This is a movie that's more about mood and feeling than plot, which can be marvelous if you connect to it, but I didn't, and it doesn't feel like a universal story (even though it's trying to be)-the film is specific to a time-and-place, and doesn't age well in my memory. It doesn't have that same sense of "wow" that Lobster did the first time I viewed it.
Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes combine adapted and original into one category, and they found room for three nominations for originals: Hell or High Water, Manchester by the Sea, and the winning La La Land. BAFTA included Moonlight as an original, so it and I, Daniel Blake both ousted 20th Century & Lobster, though it was Lonergan's Manchester that ended up winning, while the WGA actually gave the trophy to Moonlight, and again skipped 20th Century and Lobster, this time substituting in Loving, which would be my guess for the likely sixth place finisher considering it was close in a few categories and did land in Best Actress over stiff competition.
Films I Would Have Nominated: It's a little hard to find exactly who was eligible here (this year, as I mentioned in Adapted Screenplay, was a bit of a mess in terms of figuring out who was even eligible). That said, I'd surely include the mysterious & incredibly sexy neo-noir From Afar, the coming-of-age masterwork from Richard Linklater Everybody Wants Some!, and the meticulously-told story of a (seemingly) alabaster first lady in Jackie in my own lineup.
Oscar’s Choice: The trophy went to Lonergan, likely over La La Land's stampede.
My Choice: It's a close race between Lobster and Manchester for me, but I'm going with the latter if only because it feels like a fuller story, and does more with its run-time. Behind that we'll go with Century, Hell, and La La Land in the back.
Those are my thoughts-what about you? Are you with me (and the Oscars) that Manchester was due this prize, or are you siding with a different contender? If Moonlight had moved over here, would we have seen it best Lonergan, or was Manchester too big to miss? And what's it going to take to get a musical a writing Oscar again? Share your thoughts below!
No comments:
Post a Comment