OVP: Best Adapted Screenplay (2000)
The Nominees Were...
Robert Nelson Jacobs, Chocolat
Wang Hui Ling, James Schamus, & Tsai Kuo Jung, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Ethan Coen & Joel Coen, O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Stephen Gaghan, Traffic
Steve Kloves, Wonder Boys
My Thoughts: Yesterday we talked about how Original Screenplay was one of the best lineups in an otherwise "fine" year for Oscar. Today with Adapted Screenplay, we're going to get back into "fine." There's some good nominees here, for sure, but it doesn't have the consistency of Original Screenplay. It does, however, have a film that was considered original by the WGA (the line between what is adapted and original has been a common refrain in the past two decades, including this year with Barbie getting in for Adapted Screenplay at the Oscars but Original Screenplay from the BAFTA's), so let's start there, with two of the writing branch's favorites: the Coen Brothers.
O Brother Where Art Thou? is, in my opinion, adapted. It's clearly a take on Homer's The Odyssey, in the same way that you can't have Clueless without Emma. Its script is decent, but not its best attribute. The movie really is at its best when the three main characters (Clooney, Turturro, & Nelson) are feeding off of each other's chemistry, which is delightful (and colored with the Coens' brand of oddball humor), but the plotting here doesn't always work. I think we do one too many detours into sillyville, and it feels filled with too many non sequiturs (which is kind of the point, but I wasn't into it like they wanted me to be). It ranks right in the middle for the nominees.
Chocolat has through the years gotten a bad rap. It's a glossy, rainy Sunday afternoon movie. Blame Harvey Weinstein for it getting Oscar nominations it had no business stacking up, not the movie itself which is pleasant and filled with loads of great screen actresses. But now that we have to actually grade the picture, I will admit the script has issues. It's not necessarily the plot, but more the dialogue, which feels inorganic to the characters, and like it's written to advance the plot, rather than be the plot. When you have actors as talented as Juliette Binoche and Johnny Depp unable to land some of the clumsy work being done, you need to step back in your lane.
The same can be said for the dialogue in Wonder Boys. I feel like it's clunky writing, and occasionally bad writing. I keep thinking of Tobey Maguire's character, sexually-confused and on the verge of death for much of the film. The picture doesn't know what to do with him. Is he an object of lust, is he something to be pitied, is he meant to portray the contradictions of youth? Most of the characters' reactions to him are meant to be a driving force in their own arcs in the movie, and yet he's completely ill-defined. This is a good example of how Wonder Boys can't figure out what it actually is-a movie about a midlife crisis that feels like it's going through a midlife crisis.
Stephen Gaghan's adaptation of Traffic is the sort of movie that has a showy central script, which always helps with this category. The way the film is structured is basically writerly acrobatics, showing off how you can juggle multiple storylines that are seemingly unconnected, but give them the same lessons & eventually draw them into each other's worlds. This is hard to do, as is evidenced by the many copycat films that followed Traffic that could not pull it off...but Traffic does it. It is a textbook definition of how plot can be the source of a great screenplay, not just dialogue.
The same can be said for Crouching Tiger, another film that balances multiple, mirrored storylines that intersect in ways the audience only begins to understand as the movie concludes. You would be forgiven for not thinking of Crouching Tiger as a "writer's film" because it's not-this is Ang Lee's visual feast. But it does have two strong central love stories, and a well-rounded story, not to mention Zhang Ziyi's fabulous speech at the end that adds to the myth of the film. The problem with trying to poke holes in Crouching Tiger to figure out where other films deserve a chance is that it's a good movie, full stop.
Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes combine their writing categories so there is no adapted or original distinction, and three adapted contenders featured here-Quills, Wonder Boys, and the victorious Traffic. Adapted Screenplay at the BAFTA's also went to Traffic against Chocolat, Crouching Tiger, High Fidelity, and Wonder Boys, while the WGA gave a third statue to Traffic against Chocolat, Crouching Tiger, High Fidelity, and Wonder Boys. High Fidelity did the best with the precursors, and could've been a "lone" Best Screenplay nominee (they do happen, though not in 2000), though either Quills or Pollock would also have made sense in the sixth spot given their relative strength with Oscar.
Films I Would Have Nominated: I'll be honest here and say that most of my favorite films of 2000 would be originals, so even my adapted screenplay race is light. But where was The Virgin Suicides? Three years before Sofia Coppola would win a writing Oscar, she should've at least gotten mentioned for her film debut.
Oscar's Choice: There was simply no denying Traffic, which had a long-lead over second place Wonder Boys (the battle of the Michael Douglas pictures).
My Choice: Yep, I'm on the same page as the consensus here-what Traffic does is impressive, and this was a smart win by the Academy. Behind it I'll go (in order) Crouching Tiger, O Brother, Chocolat, and then Wonder Boys.
Those are my thoughts-what about you? Does everyone agree this was the perfect place to give Traffic a statue, or does someone want to vouch for others? Do you ever feel bad for a film like Chocolat, a movie you like but know doesn't belong in a category like this? And was it High Fidelity, Quills, or Pollock that just missed (likely thanks to the category confusion over O Brother Where Art Thou)? Share your thoughts below!
No comments:
Post a Comment