OVP: Norma Rae (1979)

Film: Norma Rae (1979)

Stars: Sally Field, Ron Leibman, Beau Bridges, Pat Hingle, Barbara Baxley

Director: Martin Ritt

Oscar History: 4 nominations/2 wins (Best Picture, Actress-Sally Field*, Adapted Screenplay, Original Song-"It Goes Like It Goes"*)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2024 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the women who were once crowned as "America's Sweethearts" and the careers that inspired that title (and what happened when they eventually lost it to a new generation).  This month, our focus is on Sally Field: click here to learn more about Ms. Field (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Sally Field's career began in television, and was inspired by another America's Sweetheart we profiled this year, Sandra Dee.  Field was the titular girl-next door in the television version of Gidget, but the show only lasted one season due to poor ratings (it would do better in syndication).  Field then took on what would end up being the biggest early success of her career and a setback for Field in the long run, playing Sister Bertrille in The Flying Nun, a hit for ABC that lasted three seasons.  Field couldn't escape the role, though, and was cast in a series of cutesy parts and girl-next-door roles.  It's possible that this is where Field would've stayed, but under the mentorship of Lee Strasberg (and thanks to the insistence of Joanne Woodward, her costar), she was able to land the lead role in Sybil, a TV movie that won her acclaim and an Emmy Award (beating not just Woodward, but other "reputable" actresses like Jane Alexander & Julie Harris).  Field alternated in the late 1970's between commercial fare like the box office smash Smokey and the Bandit and serious-minded cinema, including today's film, which won her her first Oscar, Norma Rae.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie takes place in a southern community (it's never confirmed, but you get an Alabama/Mississippi vibe from the surroundings), where Norma Rae Wilson (Field) works at a cotton mill and is frequently speaking out to management about the treatment of the workers, particularly her parents, who also work at the mill.  She meets a union organizer named Reuben (Leibman), who is pushy but well-informed, and trying to get the textile mill to unionize to fight back against the low wages & unfair treatment.  During this time, she meets and marries Sonny (Bridges), a sweet-but-simple (think himbo energy) coworker of hers, and they combine their families.  Norma Rae eventually joins Reuben's crusade, fighting for union rights for the textile workers, even though it's putting her life and reputation at risk.  Despite pitfalls, including a lot of pain to her marriage and her father dying from exhaustion, she is able to create the union, and hopefully in the process make her town better.

There aren't a lot of Best Actress-winning performances that I've never seen (I checked-I've caught 88% of the winners at this point), and this is one of the most-heralded that I have left.  I was curious how it would abide, and I was pleasantly surprised.  Field is excellent as Norma Rae.  I figured she'd play against type, trying still to shed the Flying Nun veneer, but she also grounds this work.  Her Norma Rae is not everything you'd expect.  She's defiant, but also quite charming and gregarious...it makes sense that a union organizer would be someone people genuinely like (otherwise why would they join her...JD Vance aside, politicians tend to be likable), but that doesn't usually happen in movies like this.  She grounds her work, making her feel like someone who gets things wrong, but isn't ashamed of being a sinner.  I think she takes this in different ways that other actresses would've and indeed Field wasn't the first choice here.  Jane Fonda, Jill Clayburgh, and Marsha Mason all turned down the role...and all famously lost at the Oscars to Field when she beat them (something that had to particularly sting for Clayburgh & Mason, who would never win an Academy Award).

The movie's most famous scene is the one where Field stands up in the factory, and holds up a placard saying "UNION" in big bold letters.  I have seen this still picture so frequently, and yet the actual scene itself played fresh.  Again, this is a testament to the filmmakers who understand subtlety, but the way that it slowly, steadily, uses the sound design of each machine turning off, the workers taking a stand next to her as they understand she's giving up everything to give them a better life, and it's time for them to stand with her, is incredibly moving.  The film is very much a product of the 1970's (the lovely song theme, the way the camera wants to show realism, the sexual politics at play), but that scene with the "UNION" is for all-time, a reminder that we never can give up the fight to ensure that the dignity of work is protected and respected.

OVP: Ordinary People (1980)

Film: Ordinary People (1980)

Stars: Donald Sutherland, Mary Tyler Moore, Timothy Hutton, Judd Hirsch

Director: Robert Redford

Oscar History: 6 nominations/4 wins (Best Picture*, Director*, Actress-Mary Tyler Moore, Supporting Actor-Timothy Hutton*, Supporting Actor-Judd Hirsch, Adapted Screenplay*)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2024 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the women who were once crowned as "America's Sweethearts" and the careers that inspired that title (and what happened when they eventually lost it to a new generation).  This month, our focus is on Mary Tyler Moore: click here to learn more about Ms. Moore (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

It's hard to express what a big deal The Mary Tyler Moore Show was when it was on in the 1970's.  The show wasn't a gargantuan-style Friends-esque behemoth in the ratings (it was a Top 20 hit for five of its seven seasons, so respectable, but was not once in the Top 5, peaking at #7 in Season 3), but it dominated the pop culture landscape.  The show would spawn three spinoffs, including the critically-acclaimed drama Lou Grant, and win more Emmys than any comedy until Frasier over two decades later.  Three of those would be for Moore as Best Actress in a Comedy Series.  As a result of playing Mary Richards, beautiful-but-talented, a single woman who didn't need a husband to be happy (or successful in life), she created a feminist icon.  Oprah Winfrey herself has stated she got into television because of Mary Richards, and the normally composed Winfrey openly wept when Moore made a surprise appearance on her show.  Coming off such a success would be daunting, but Moore chose pretty well for herself.  Being guided by Robert Redford in his directorial debut, Moore won the only Academy Award nomination of her career for 1980's Ordinary People, arguably the only significant film she'd make in her career in terms of passing into cultural relevance, a movie that won an Best Picture Oscar that is still discussed today.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie is about the Jarretts, living in the suburbs of Chicago in an idllic house, but as you can imagine things at home are not idillic.  Their eldest son Buck has passed away from drowning, an accident on a sailboat that occurred while their younger son Conrad (Hutton) was on the boat, and since then Conrad has attempted suicide & gone to a mental hospital.  Conrad is now back-in-school but unsuccessfully readjusting, and his parents are not handling it the same.  His father Calvin (Sutherland) is amiable but largely hoping the problem will go away if he's kind to his son, while his wife Beth (Moore) wants to pretend nothing is different, and lives a sort of plastic Norman Rockwell-style existence, frequently trying to lift her problematic son out of her life completely.  Conrad is in therapy with Dr. Berger (Hirsch), a tough-talking psychiatrist who wants to get to the root cause of Conrad's problems, many of which he places at the feet of his parents.  As we learn, this is both true and an excuse.  Conrad has the ability to change himself, but not those around him, and when he suffers a breakdown, this comes to a head.  His father is willing to bend and be someone different to stay with the son he has left, but his wife is not, and leaves them before the end of the picture.  It's a hopeful, but bleak (and realistic) ending, and look at what grief can do to a family unit.

Ordinary People's best moments come from the prickliness that happens within a family unit, and how each person plays a part (and what happens when one of them is no longer there to play said part).  I think what's so smart about Redford's direction and the script is the way that it doesn't shy away from this.  It's very clear that Buck was Beth's favorite child, and that Calvin tried to compensate by favoring Conrad, though he wasn't as successful because Beth is the dominant figure in the household.  What is more intriguing is watching Beth & Calvin's own realities start to dissipate as we move into the movie.  It's clear that while Calvin loved both the boys, Beth might not have loved either of them, or at least not in a conventional way...she saw them as ornaments for her life, things to show to her friends.  There's an extremely uncomfortable but telling moment where Calvin wants to get a photo of Beth & Conrad together, and while Conrad is willing, Beth refuses, insisting she doesn't need it, and you see the look on Timothy Hutton's face as he understands in real time his mother no longer even wants to be seen next to him, he has strayed so far from what is acceptable as her ornament.  This is a very real type of mother (just look at all of the parents who abandon their children for being gay or trans), who only loves their child if they match the vision they have of them in their head.

And it's a testament to Moore (and the writers) that she doesn't get a redemption.  Part of what makes this performance so good is that Moore's Beth is not someone who is going to change, because she'll never see what she's doing as wrong.  She is the sort of person who has never considered that her worldview might be incorrect, and while Conrad & Calvin are capable of such introspection, she is not, which makes the ending work really well-you get a sense of her going back into her own life of golf, cocktail parties, & church fundraisers, everyone gossiping about how lonely she is behind her back but too afraid to reach out for fear of her slapping their hand.  All of the performers in this are good (Sutherland's blistered dad, Hutton's damaged son, even the least of the main quartet Hirsch's hipster doctor works more than he doesn't), but Moore is the best because she manages to play unlikeable so real.

The big controversy for any Oscar watcher (this is one of the very rare Best Picture winners I'd never seen) is that it beat Martin Scorsese's Raging Bull, and so (for the record) I want to acknowledge that this is not as good as Raging Bull (few movies are).  That movie does more with form, and has a better central performance.  But it is strong, and I get why it has developed a sort of second battalion of defenders in recent years after being something of a How Green Was My Valley/Dances with Wolves-style punching bag for so many years.  It's a great movie...it just probably shouldn't have beaten a masterpiece.

OVP: Adapted Screenplay (1999)

OVP: Best Adapted Screenplay (1999)

The Nominees Were...

 

John Irving, The Cider House Rules

Alexander Payne & Jim Taylor, Election

Frank Darabont, The Green Mile

Eric Roth & Michael Mann, The Insider

Anthony Minghella, The Talented Mr. Ripley

My Thoughts: 1999 was one of those years (this happens less than you'd think) where all of the Best Picture nominees were cited for a writing Oscar.  In a way, this is logical.  The Sixth Sense is all about its twists and American Beauty is all about its shocks.  In the adapted field, two of them made total sense as well.  You have one that is adapted from a high-profile (I remember watching them at my grandparents' house) set of interviews on 60 Minutes, and a book from a one of the most celebrated novelists from the late 20th Century.  And then there was the third, which in 1999 was a much bigger deal than it would've been now (or at least more surprising).

Yes, The Green Mile was the film that finally got Stephen King into the Best Picture category.  It's hard to grasp now, but at one point King's movies were very much a mixed bag, and each installment was a "is it going to be Carrie or Thinner?" The Green Mile was actually a big deal at the time (I remember walking B. Dalton in the bestsellers section and seeing each tiny little manuscript of King's every few months coming out like an old-timey Charles Dickens or Bronte sister series).  The movie, though, is not one of King's best adaptations even if it's arguably his most-lauded.  The film is too schmaltzy, the plot pivots too telegraphed, and it's way too long.  I didn't like it, and couldn't get into any of the performances, much less the writing.  Stick to Misery.

The rest of the nominees I can espouse more fruitfully for, though I will admit that The Cider House Rules is also suffering from the schmaltz count.  I loved much of Michael Caine's dialogue ("Good Night you princes of Maine, you kings of New England" is a fabulous line), and I think that the way that they talk about the moral imperative of abortion is groundbreaking (and in a post-Dobbs world, much-needed).  But it doesn't feel enough, and it doesn't know how to handle Homer's sexuality & crushed dreams in a way that feels like a push throughout the film...you feel like he's reverting back, resigned to his old life, rather than the happier ending Irving clearly intended.

The final Best Picture nominee was The Insider, and it's the best film (and best writing) of the trio.  The movie's screenplay is really sharp both in terms of plotting and dialogue.  I love the way that it unfolds as a thriller, despite us both knowing what is happening and, years after the fact, what he's telling is universally-acknowledged (of course big tobacco knows it is killing people).  The dialogue is also aces, particularly the way they handle Christopher Plummer's Mike Wallace, writing him as this "man of truth" who is first-and-foremost driven by protecting his own privilege and celebrity when encountering the story of the decade.

The two non-Best Picture nominees are both strong (and would've made worthy inclusions in Oscar's list, to be honest).  I love the way that The Talented Mr. Ripley turns Patricia Highsmith's novel into one of almost a game.  We know Ripley is going to make it out of each scenario-he is the sort of devilish figure that you can't help but surrender to, he's going to take what he wants from you and you hope to get away with your life.  The dialogue, especially for Dickie, is catered.  You have this sort of impossibly handsome deity who is speaking in a way that only someone beautiful & rich can get away with...a Kennedy wrapped in the body of Tab Hunter.

The final nomination is Election, Alexander Payne's magnum opus.  The movie is thought-provoking, crisply tackling a variety of subjects from sexism to promiscuity to politics.  The way that every word that comes out of Reese Witherspoon's mouth is almost spit, like she has never thought about what she said (but is clearly planning everything) is splendid.  I also (and this is rare for me) was into the narration-I think it gives us a world inside of Matthew Broderick's brain (and the brains of several other characters) that helps to explain the why's behind their actions in a way that doesn't feel totally expository...even they don't know why they're doing this.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes combine adapted & original, and while American Beauty took the category, we had adapted nominations for The Insider and The Cider House Rules.  BAFTA splits their categories and gave their statue to The End of the Affair against East is East, An Ideal Husband, and The Talented Mr. Ripley (we are entering in the 1990's the era where BAFTA kind of did its own thing, which is going to be fun to watch but will hurt if you're trying to read Oscars' tea leaves).  The WGA went with the same lineup as Oscar, except they gave their win to Election, and got rid of The Green Mile for October Sky.  In sixth place...it was none of these, right?  Maybe The End of the Affair, but Boys Don't Cry & The Hurricane had better-regarded acting nods than Julianne Moore's picture, and I think one of them was coming from behind.

Films I Would Have Nominated: I don't entirely love my rule "that all sequels are adaptations" but it is what it is now, and I'm going to go with Toy Story 2 as my biggest miss of this field.  It's hard to make a sequel this profound and well-done.

Oscar's Choice: Despite a late statue for Election from the WGA, you weren't going to beat John Irving for the Best Picture runner-up.  The Cider House Rules wins.

My Choice: And here it is-an easy win for Alexander Payne, one of Oscar's favorites, but one who I am largely ambivalent toward except Election (and Sideways).  It gets my win, followed by The Insider, The Talented Mr. Ripley, The Cider House Rules, and then The Green Mile.

Those are my thoughts-what about you?  Do you want to bask in the absurdist comedy of Election or pick apples where The Cider House Rules?  What do you think is the best adaptation of Stephen King's work?  And was it The End of the Affair, Boys Don't Cry, or The Hurricane in sixth place?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 1999: Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously, in 1999

Past Best Adapted Screenplay Contests: 1931-32, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

OVP: Adapted Screenplay (2023)

OVP: Best Adapted Screenplay (2023)

The Nominees Were...

 

Cord Jefferson, American Fiction

Greta Gerwig & Noah Baumbach, Barbie

Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer

Tony McNamara, Poor Things

Jonathan Glazer, The Zone of Interest

My Thoughts: As I said yesterday, the Best Picture field was dominating in this category, with all five of the films cited being from that field, and the certain sixth place also being a Best Picture nominee.  When you're that staid, it's hard to have a lot of interesting things to say.  This is the first time we've gotten to one of these movies (the rest had tech citations), and obviously it's not the last time we'll get to them, as all of these will not only show up in Best Picture, but 45% of our acting nominees & 60% of our directing nominees are from these five films...so let's just do this, as if Oscar didn't have an interesting take on this field, I shouldn't be expected to find one to start our discussion.

American Fiction is the only new name we haven't hit yet, so I'll begin there.  I really enjoyed this movie, let's start straight-out, I think more than most people did even with its Oscar haul.  I believe it's sharp in the way it handles satire, while also giving us scenes that feel so real that you can't help but wonder if this is exactly how they'd play out in real-life.  I do think the film fails in trying to talk about the Black experience alongside the queer experience (we'll get into this more tomorrow with Sterling K. Brown's character, but it's grappled with really poorly in a film that otherwise feels quite on-the-nerve), but it also shares so much rich discourse about how the commodification of diversity has led to a flattening effect, it's hard to argue with this film being celebrated.

Barbie was inexplicably placed here despite it being adapted from a box in a toy store (I think this is one of the stupider choices the branch has made in a while), but it's a fun & game look at Mattel's pink creation.  Gerwig & Baumbach's script is funny, filled with wit and delicious commentary on feminism.  I honestly think the best parts of the film in that regard are some of the asides ("I don't control the railways or the flow of commerce" being a really astute look at the literal meanings of words), more than something like America Ferrara's quite generic "girl power" speech toward the end of the film.  I was more struck by the movie's humor than its abundant looks at the experiences of women, to be real...but as a man I'm going to kind of let that one go as I don't feel the need to Kensplain a fun script's weak points.

This is another Barbenheimer mash-up (currently Barbie is up 2-0 in the OVP with three more categories to go after today), and Oppenheimer in a lot of ways stays in the same lane as Barbie: a lot of good, just a smattering of needs-to-be-fixed.  I loved the way Nolan handles the film's structure, giving us snippets of Oppenheimer's life that still feels like it's building to something, and we have a lot of wonderful writing.  The film's politics, similar to Barbie, are a mixed bag (should Oppenheimer get the benefit-of-the-doubt in the way that he does?), it has one terrible line about JFK that needs to be cut as it's far too Sorkin-esque, and Nolan continues not to be able to write women (Emily Blunt's Oscar nomination being this one-note is very much a writer's issue).  But this is a gigantic, engaging biopic, one that earns its stripes.

The Zone of Interest is so much a film of other elements (directing, production design, sound) that you might forget that it also has an absolute banger of a screenplay.  The movie uses the Holocaust as an omnipresent Sword of Damocles, ready to strike at any moment the audience might forget what is going on with these characters.  The way that it makes organic dialogue feel so chilling, as we hear people discuss mundane topics that also include genocide (one that they're helping to perpetrate) is horrifying, and a good reminder that the way we treat modern politics as a game is really dismissing the real world ramifications of those conversations (and us dismissing our own role in them).  Glazer is a genius.

Which brings us to Poor Things.  Between the two, I honestly think that Poor Things is the more intriguing piece of feminist writing than Barbie, mostly because it's having a conversation that is rarely brought up in the movies around a woman taking power over her sexuality (and the way that that threatens men).  But when it comes to gender dynamics between the two, especially in the film's second half, it becomes a bit less riveting, and again moves into cliched conversations.  The writing is also sharper in the first half, much wittier and the plotting is more strongly-structured.  Poor Things, the more I write about it, feels like a movie that aged worse after I watched it & considered it after-the-fact, which is a pity as Emma Stone is so good in the picture.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes combine adapted & original, so we have four adapted screenplays losing to the original Anatomy of a Fall: Barbie, Poor Things, Oppenheimer, and Killers of the Flower Moon.  The BAFTA's put Barbie in original, so it's not here, though American Fiction won against All of Us Strangers, Oppenheimer, Poor Things, & The Zone of Interest, while the WGA's (which, let's remember, were presented after the Oscars so this isn't really a "precursor" at all) also went to American Fiction atop Are You There God, It's Me Margaret?, Killers of the Flower Moon, Nyad, & Oppenheimer.  In sixth place, it's obviously Killers of the Flower Moon-the only Best Picture nominee not to get nominated anywhere else, there's no way it wasn't Scorsese's film.

Films I Would Have Nominated: I have held off long enough in discussing All of Us Strangers and its criminal lack of nominations at the Oscars (I purposefully haven't listed it before this even though it will definitely get nominations at the My Ballot before this.  Just an absolutely perfect film, one that gives so much in its script, generously looking at the way we can never really grow up (and never truly understand our parents).

Oscar's Choice: Making films about writers is generally a good way to win this award, and that was the case with American Fiction, getting a trophy against the "Barbenheimer" team that otherwise would've gone to one of the duo (I'm honestly not sure which).

My Choice: For sure The Zone of Interest, totally acing with not even a top three aspect of the film (it's just that good).  For the silver, I'm going to give it to Barbie against Oppenheimer, giving Gerwig's film a 3-0 lead with the OVP.  Both films have faults, but Barbie's are less to do with the script (and again, both faults are minor-both would've made a decent victor).  Behind these are American Fiction and then Poor Things.

Those are my thoughts-what about you?  Do you want to critique the literary scene with Oscar or would you prefer to...actually The Zone of Interest is so dark I can't make this cutesy-is your choice American Fiction or The Zone of Interest?  Was Barbie or Oppenheimer closer here (I think of their six matchups, this is the one that they got the closest both in my ballot and with Oscar's)?  And who was Killers of the Flower Moon closest to ousting?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2023: Original Screenplay, International Feature Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound, Original Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2023

Past Best Adapted Screenplay Contests: 1931-32, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: The Nun's Story (1959)

Film: The Nun's Story (1959)

Stars: Audrey Hepburn, Peter Finch, Edith Evans, Peggy Ashcroft, Dean Jagger, Mildred Dunnock

Director: Fred Zinnemann

Oscar History: 8 nominations (Best Picture, Director, Actress-Audrey Hepburn, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Film Editing, Score, Sound)

Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars

Each month, as part of our 2024 Saturdays with the Stars series, we are looking at the women who were once crowned as "America's Sweethearts" and the careers that inspired that title (and what happened when they eventually lost it to a new generation).  This month, our focus is on Audrey Hepburn: click here to learn more about Ms. Hepburn (and why I picked her), and click here for other Saturdays with the Stars articles.

Like many women who wore the title of "America's Sweetheart" Audrey Hepburn's critical acclaim has been questioned through the years by some, claiming she was a "limited" actress.  This feels like an odd thing to point out for Hepburn, who more than almost any actress we're going to profile this year, received a lot of critical acclaim.  Hepburn was cited for five Oscars in her career, winning for Roman Holiday, and that didn't include her lauded work in My Fair Lady, which was widely-expected by many to be a spot for her to get a nomination.  She also was one of the first people to win an EGOT (an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, & Tony) and did so as a performer.  Today, we are going to discuss one of Hepburn's Oscar-nominated turns, the final one that I had yet to see, and one that I think shows the versatility of her acting, rather than calling it (as her critics have) "one-note": The Nun's Story.

(Spoilers Ahead) The movie focuses on the life of Gaby, a young postulant who for most of the film is known as Sister Luke (Hepburn).  She has, before the start of the film, decided to devote herself to a life as a nun, something that we don't get a lot of insight into the rationale why, though we think it's to become a nurse in the Congo (there's a throwaway line about a boy she liked late in the film, and I rather liked that this might be a secondary reason for her, because it adds a depth to the film even if it might also be a touch antifeminist to assume she couldn't just want this for a career).  Of course, being a nun is not just about nursing, but instead also about devotion to God, and throughout the film we get to see Sister Luke struggle with a crisis-of-faith, trying to find a way to help those around her through her scientific skills, but also to get back to her devotion to the church, and wanting to show that she can be worthy of her new calling, and not just being a nurse.  As the film progresses, it becomes evident that she cannot, and in the final moments of the film, she leaves the convent forever.

The movie was cited for 8 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, and it's worthy of most of them.  The film is wonderfully-structured, giving us a glimpse not only into the life of a woman trying to become a nun, but giving it two-dimensionally.  I have read that some (particularly composer Franz Waxman) were critical of the Catholic Church, but I'll be honest-I don't think the story gets that across.  If you want to debate the Church, you've got your evidence there-the constant critiquing of Sister Luke for having human impulses feels cruel in parts.  But there's also a spot for those who are sympathetic to the church, showing how becoming a nun isn't a calling for everyone, even for the most kindhearted of women (i.e. there's more to being a nun than being good).  I loved that approach, and honestly really liked this movie.  There are critiques to be had (I don't think that it gives us enough connection to those around Sister Luke for us to really understand why she ultimately gives up the church after sacrificing so much), but they're thin.  Zinnemann's approach, the film's lovely cinematography, and the way that it wordlessly adds depth to the ending by foregoing Waxman's score as Hepburn leaves the convent, rather than giving us a dramatic swell, is marvelous.  It's clear at that moment that Sister Luke is picking the only way out, but she's not sure if it's the right one, and the music not giving the audience any indication this is the correct path is really well-designed.

Hepburn's performance here is really stellar.  The cinematography & makeup work are helping her cause, to be fair.  I love the way we start to see the angelic Hepburn's eyes start to become sallow with the weight of the world on her, highlighted by the constant focus on her face (in many ways copying what cinematographer Arthur C. Miller did for Jennifer Jones in The Song of Bernadette).  But Hepburn is also giving something extra to her work here.  Her internal struggles, the way that her inner-monologue never shuts off, particularly when we see that she can't speak to other people, is very reminiscent of Robert Bresson's Diary of a Country Priest, and it's very effective.  Hepburn shows here she might always look like a pixie, but she also was able to use that to create versatility.  She's up against actresses like Simone Signoret & Katharine Hepburn, generally considered to be "better" actresses than she is, but her performance honestly is more nuanced and stronger in the way it highlights the picture than either of those two more celebrated thespians.  Hepburn's critical reputation from some snobbish cinephiles as one-note is, well, wrong.

OVP: Adapted Screenplay (1931-32)

OVP: Best Adapted Screenplay (1931-32)

The Nominees Were...

Sidney Howard, Arrowsmith

Edwin Burke, Bad Girl

Percy Heath & Samuel Hoffenstein, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

My Thoughts: We are moving into the adapted screenplay race, which unlike the Best Original Story category, is the modern equivalent of the category, though we once again have only three nominations.  If you were going to expand any of these categories, this would've been the place to do it, given that circa 1932, virtually all screenplays were adapted.  For some reason (perhaps because sound was so new), screenplays of this era were almost always plucked from the Broadway stage or from the shelves of your local bookshop.  The three this cycle were all based on books, two by famed authors and one largely forgotten by history.

We'll start with the title I'm confident you all know, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (by Robert Louis Stevenson), the only one of these that I've actually read in addition to seeing the film.  The movie itself is quite wonderful, and a visual feast.  The legendary transformation effects (using camera filters to make it look like Fredric March is changing in front of you) is what draws you into the movie.  The adaptation is not really the most impressive part of it (that's the acting and the effects), but it's serviceable, giving you most of the high notes of March's novella, and I like the ways that it handles Miriam Hopkins, specifically, in making her the audience's entry point into the story.

We've insulted Arrowsmith a lot this season, which is weird because it's mostly been foreshadowing, but now we've finally arrived at the reason why-the adaptation is truly poor.  The film is a slog, frequently getting caught in its own machinations, and not leaning in hard enough to its Pre-Code status.  The film gets away with things that wouldn't be possible a few years later (i.e. the hint of an affair), but without saying outright that Ronald Colman & Myrna Loy are clearly having sex (I would assume/hope the book is more explicit about this), it feels jumbled, and totally gives Helen Hayes the world's most boring wife role.

For Bad Girl, I'm going to quote my Letterboxd review "communication is key to a marriage...but it's more crucial in a screenplay."  I know that Bad Girl has its champions, and indeed it's a better movie than Arrowsmith, but it's also one of those movies where even the most basic of conversations could sort out mountains of misunderstandings.  The film would work better as a straight-up comedy (at least then the misunderstandings would feed into the subject), but it's a drama and the lack of any actual "bad girl" behavior from Sally Eilers made me feel like I was cheated.

Other Precursor Contenders: There were no precursors in 1931-32, so I'm guessing that fourth place was maybe something like Five Star Final, which is a fast-talking picture, and also one that was based on a hit Broadway play that many Academy members likely would've seen the year before.

Films I Would Have Nominated: I will be adiosing all of these nominees, even the best one, with my own five-wide field.  Something like Frankenstein, which takes what could've been an unadaptable book and makes it so universal that most people assume that's what happens in the book, is at the top of the list.

Oscar's Choice: Oscar loves a Bad Girl, especially one who isn't actually bad, and gave the film the statue that Arrowsmith probably got the closest on.

My Choice: I'm going to go with Dr. Jekyll, as it's the only movie I liked, and I'm going to attribute at least part of that to the screenplay.  I'll do Arrowsmith next, then Bad Girl.

Those are my thoughts-what about you?  Are you finding yourself drawn to a bad girl like Oscar, or would you rather hang with an (actually) bad boy with me?  Why do you think there are so few adaptations of Sinclair Lewis novels today (does anyone even read Sinclair Lewis anymore)?  And why were adaptations all the rage in the early Sound Era?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 1931-32: Original Story, Art Direction, Cinematography, Previously in 1931-32

Past Best Adapted Screenplay Contests: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: Adapted Screenplay (2000)

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!

Also in 2000: Original Screenplay, Foreign Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2000

Past Best Adapted Screenplay Contests: 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

OVP: Adapted Screenplay (2001)

OVP: Best Adapted Screenplay (2001)

The Nominees Were...

Akiva Goldsman, A Beautiful Mind

Daniel Clowes & Terry Zwigoff, Ghost World

Rob Festinger & Todd Field, In the Bedroom

Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, & Peter Jackson, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio, Joe Stillman, & Roger SH Schulman, Shrek

My Thoughts: Like I pointed out in Best Original Screenplay, if you were looking for Best Picture nominees, this is where you were going to find them.  Three of the films cited here were in the Best Picture race, and to be honest a fourth was darn close.  That of course means, in theory, that the category was competitive, but in practice it was not.  Despite rewrites of history that might peg this as closer than it was given how well Peter Jackson's JRR Tolkien epic has aged, this was not a contest, and Akiva Goldman won it in a landslide.

Goldman's script, it has to be said, is not the worst.  Something happens to you when you win an Oscar that pretty much everyone in retrospect agrees you shouldn't have, and part of that cycle of shame is that people misremember how good your movie is.  A Beautiful Mind is a good movie, and the script works pretty well.  I think that the soliloquies are well-constructed (I quote Connelly's "I have to believe that something real is possible" line at least once a week, which may say something about my personal life but that's an article for a different day), and it incorporates scientific theory without it feeling overbearing or confusing.  The love story isn't as well-written as it needs to be (and the glossing over Nash's real-life bisexuality feels tacky decades later, especially as it is very briefly hinted at so I think it's fair to criticize the script's handling of it), but this wouldn't be an embarrassing win were it not for the competition.

That competition includes, of course, the adaptation of JRR Tolkien's The Fellowship of the Ring.  In the next nine months, I will be rereading The Hobbit and reading Tolkien's trilogy for the first time, so I'm just going off of anecdotes here, but from what I've gleaned this is a really remarkable adaptation given how prescriptive & poetry-driven the source novels are.  It comes across beautifully in the picture, with the narration at the front feeling hallowed rather than expositional (and it could've easily been the latter), and the way that a movie with over a dozen characters doesn't confuse the audience with too much at once (despite the film not having a lot of well-known actors at the time).  Throw in some magnificent speeches & dialogue, and you've got a masterpiece.

In the Bedroom is the third Best Picture of the group, and is really wonderful.  There was a trend at this point to talk about the "what lies beneath the surface of the suburbs" in movies (there was literally a film called What Lies Beneath the year before that did just that), and this is one of those films where you don't entirely know the characters at the beginning of the picture, and what they're capable of becoming.  The way that it unfolds, with hidden truths springing from our main couple after unspeakable tragedy befalls them, and how they can find a place together after it, is bold & surprising...words you wouldn't guess at first for a family drama.

Ghost World is the only one of these films that didn't get nominated in any other categories (it was close for Supporting Actor), and therefore you generally know that the screenplay is the star when this branch is the only one calling.  It's a movie that, for much of the first half, I wasn't feeling-it felt too suspended from reality, and needlessly cruel in its perspective.  But the movie works because of the ending, which is staggering & melancholy in a way that I didn't expect heading into the picture.  That's on the script (and Thora Birch's timing as a young woman who doesn't see the potential her youth gives her in the way the other, older characters, understand it), and I give kudos where they're due-it finishes well.

Which brings us to Shrek.  This is a movie I have a complicated relationship with, because it does have good elements, and some of them come from the script.  Eddie Murphy's voiceover work as the Donkey is sensational, funny & full of the quick-wit that the comedian has been known for in movies & television for years.  But it's also brimming with dated pop culture references, gross-out humor, and charmless nonsense from Mike Myers.  I lived through this sensation-I know what a big deal Shrek was at the time.  That doesn't mean I condone it.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes combine their writing categories so there is no adapted or original distinction, and in 2001 only one nominee was adapted, A Beautiful Mind (but it did win).  A Beautiful Mind also took the WGA Award, taking out Black Hawk Down, Bridget Jones's Diary, Ghost World, and The Fellowship of the Ring while the BAFTA's went with Shrek against A Beautiful Mind, Bridget Jones's Diary, Iris, and The Fellowship of the Ring.  In sixth place, I feel pretty confident in guessing Bridget Jones even if Iris & Black Hawk Down both had better Oscar runs.  It's hard to underscore what a big deal this novel was at the time (pretty much everyone read it, including me), and it was one of those event books that oftentimes got nominated in this category.

Films I Would Have Nominated: Taking over where Kubrick left off, it's hard not to be impressed with what Steven Spielberg brings (from both directors) to AI: Artificial Intelligence.

Oscar's Choice: Oscar went with its Best Picture winner atop its second place Best Picture contender, The Fellowship of the Ring.

My Choice: I am not denying Peter Jackson anything-it gets the gold for me.  Behind it, I'll go In the Bedroom, A Beautiful Mind, Ghost World, and Shrek, in that order.

Those are my thoughts-what about you?  Are you with me that this is the start of an epic story of hobbits & elves, or do you want to get into the magical mind of John Nash?  What do you think of that truly out-of-character victory for Shrek at the BAFTA's?  And how do you think Ghost World pulled off a surprise against expected contender Bridget Jones?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2001: Original Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Previously in 2001

Past Best Adapted Screenplay Contests: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022