OVP: Original Screenplay (2001)

OVP: Best Original Screenplay (2001)

The Nominees Were...

Guillaume Laurant & Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Amelie

Julian Fellowes, Gosford Park

Christopher Nolan & Jonathan Nolan, Memento

Milo Addica & Will Rokos, Monster's Ball

Wes Anderson & Owen Wilson, The Royal Tenenbaums

My Thoughts: I oftentimes feel like the original vs. adapted screenplay race in terms of what Oscar prefers wanders through the years.  In the 1930's, virtually every screenplay was adapted from a book or stage production, but when New Hollywood emerged in the 1960's & 70's, we saw more of a turn to the original writers of the era with the Best Picture lineups.  In 2001, we were going through a phase where adapted was en vogue, and so we only have one Best Picture nominee in this group.  Usually, though, the original screenplay races of this era were more interesting because it required Oscar to think outside of the box, and while there is one classic script in this bunch...I kind of think AMPAS was whiffing more than connecting in this lineup.

That Best Picture nominee was Gosford Park, a classic whodunit mystery from Julian Fellowes (who, as we've discussed quite a bit this season, would go on to take parts of this and turn it into Downton Abbey).  The movie is rich in overlapping dialogue, as is true of most of Robert Altman's films, and it unfolds really well.  We get a lot of competing storylines, which make it honestly a mystery as to where to look, which helps as we get to the end and have a series of "ah ha!" moments.  I also love that the dialogue reveals a lot about the guests without it feeling too expositional, which would run counter to the approach Altman takes to his films.

Memento also runs the risk of being too expositional, but doesn't (which is kind of a miracle given how confusing it's intended to be for the audience in the first 30 minutes).  Nolan is not my favorite screenwriter, primarily because he doesn't know how to end his movies (this extends to pretty much every one of his pictures after this), but here...I have no problems.  The film is succinct, he's still early in his career (and thus getting studio notes that he actually has to listen to), so it's all quickly-paced & flowing, and I think the gimmick works every scene the further you go back (or forward).

Amelie will leave us with this article (it didn't make any other categories in the Big 8, despite being a threat for them).  The film plays, visually, like a charming fairy tale.  I think the picture itself, and this extends to the script, is a bit busy.  It feels too focused on shocking the audience while not zeroing into the charms of our Audrey Hepburn-like protagonist, and the romance that springs from Amelie's story itself.  It's good, don't get me wrong, but as we close our conversation with her...it should have been better.

The same can be said for The Royal Tenenbaums.  This is one of the better movies from Wes Anderson, an inventive filmmaker who almost always leaves me in the middle.  The conversational dialogue with a cast that features some regulars but enough newcomers (Gene Hackman, Gwyneth Paltrow) that it reads fresh & not like it's in the same spot as most of his other films is a joy.  It's too precious, frequently distracted by little tangents that don't go anywhere, which isn't always a problem (movies can just be visual beings), but when you're assessing the script, you need to dock a few points.

That said, there is one stinker in this lineup, and it's Monster's Ball.  The film is badly written, with twists that go nowhere serving as a replacement for a cohesive, well-thought-out plot.  The movie garnered headlines at the time for the intense sex scene between Billy Bob Thornton & Halle Berry, but that doesn't really come out of anywhere because the writing hasn't done the legwork-a scene that should be really jarring for the audience given what these two characters have been through instead reads as just lying there.  Add in that there's no explanation for Billy Bob Thornton's complete-180 as a character, and you've got one of the more embarrassing Oscar nominations of 2001.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes combine adapted and original into one category, and despite Oscar only citing one Best Picture nominee in their original screenplay race, the Globes nominated four original screenplays even though the winner was adapted (A Beautiful Mind): Gosford Park, The Man Who Wasn't There, Memento, and Mulholland Drive.  The WGA went with Gosford Park over The Man Who Wasn't There, Monster's Ball, Moulin Rouge!, and The Royal Tenenbaums, while BAFTA surprisingly picked Amelie against Gosford Park, Moulin Rouge!, The Others, and The Royal Tenenbaums.  I'm going to guess that The Man Who Wasn't There, rather than Moulin Rouge! was the Original Screenplay sixth place in 2001, mostly because Oscar is far kinder in this category to the Coen Brothers than to musicals, even if Moulin Rouge! got the Best Picture citation.

Films I Would Have Nominated: I have no such prejudices, though, and I think Moulin Rouge! is a musical that totally impresses when it's in and out of song, especially the "Spectacular Spectacular" pitch scene, where both attributes combine.

Oscar’s Choice: Some of the precursors got creative, but Oscar was a bit more traditional-that Best Picture nomination won Gosford Park its sole Academy Award.

My Choice: In a tight race, I'm going to pick Memento, getting Christopher Nolan an Oscar very early in his career, over Gosford Park, just because I think what it's doing is more impressive (both are very worthy).  Behind them it's Amelie, The Royal Tenenbaums, and then Monster's Ball.

Those are my thoughts-what about you?  Are you getting amnesia with me, or do you want to solve murders in the parlor room with Oscar?  Why do you think there was such a long break for Wes Anderson in this category before 2014?  And was it Moulin Rouge! or The Man Who Wasn't There in sixth place?  Share your thoughts below!

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

OVP: Animated Feature Film (2018)

 OVP: Best Animated Feature Film (2018)

The Nominees Were...

Brad Bird, John Walker, & Nicole Paradis Grindle, Incredibles 2

Wes Anderson, Scott Rudin, Steven Rales, & Jeremy Dawson, Isle of Dogs

Mamoru Hosodu & Yuichiro Saito, Mirai

Rich Moore, Phil Johnston, & Clark Spencer, Ralph Breaks the Internet

Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey, Rodney Rothman, & Christopher Miller, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse

My Thoughts: One of the stranger things about the animated-feature film race, particularly in the last ten years, is that it kind of runs the gamut when it comes to the justification of a five-wide field.  There are years where, even if I don't think that it needs it (I never think it does, honestly-the point of awards is you honor the best of the best, not all of the best), you get a five-wide field that feels worthy of Oscar-where there's not a bad film in the bunch.  And then there are years, like 2018, where the field that Oscar pulls together might look respectable, but let's be honest-these are not a grand selection of films.

Perhaps the best example of this is Incredibles 2, a followup to a truly great picture (you can see past contests below, and if you click on 2004 you'll see it was our undisputed winner on this blog).  Incredibles 2 always felt logical-more than any other Pixar film, it was the movie that demanded a sequel (superhero pictures often do).  But the movie has nothing new to say-since 2004, the superhero genre has become tired, and the idea of superheroes as celebrities (whose wanton destruction of the world at large they need to be held responsible for), isn't a new concept, and this feels played-out.  Even compared to other unnecessary sequels like Toy Story 4, it's just not a film that ever justifies its existence, and I think most of the positive reviews of the film are driven by nostalgia more than people liking this particular picture.

The same can be said for Disney's other nominee here, Ralph Breaks the Internet.  Like Incredibles, I liked Wreck-It Ralph (I gave it my bronze in 2012), and unlike Incredibles 2, Ralph has an interesting story to tell.  We have Venellope outgrowing her friend Ralph, and the ending gives us something bittersweet (an emotion that Disney in the 21st Century has struggled to capture).  But the film's ridiculous commercialization oftentimes fails more than it succeeds.  The Disney Princess scene is a blast, but it underlines how vapid the rest of the story is, which feels like a commercial for the Disney brand more than a film that stands up on its own (like the original Ralph).  I left feeling disgusted that I'd spent $15 to see a commercial-why didn't they just visit DisneyWorld rather than the internet, since that's clearly where they wanted you to go after watching this movie?

Mirai, though, takes my antipathy and doubles down-I actively disliked this movie.  While there are scenes of beauty (the Tokyo subway sequence being the standout), the movie is dull.  It repeats the same motif over-and-over-and-over again, and the principle character of Kun is annoying in a way that I couldn't get past.  Honestly, this is the rare situation where my active dislike of a major character was too much for me to be invested in their journey of self-discovery, particularly when that journey was repetitive & tried to pull the same tricks throughout.  I just wasn't having it-the first anime film not produced by Studio Ghibli to win an Oscar was a massive dud for me, and the most superfluous of this quintet.

Isle of Dogs is perhaps the most distinctive and beautiful of these five films.  The mountains of garbage are a neat, oddly lovely trick; there's some wonderful homages to the city of Tokyo that it's hard not to appreciate.  And I loved the fun that Anderson is having fun with the voice cast (best in show is Yoko Ono, yes the Yoko Ono, playing an assistant scientist...named Yoko Ono).  Yet I feel like I struggle as the film goes on with this sort of twee (I know his fans hate that word, but the shoe fits with Isle of Dogs) viewpoint of the world, and there are moments in this film that Wes Anderson (a white man from Houston) feels like he might be crossing the line into appropriation using so much from Japanese culture in his movie, sometimes as a source of humor that had me shifting uncomfortably in my seat.

Which brings us to Oscar's winner, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse.  Beautifully-put together (the animation feels both cutting edge & like it's paying homage to 1990's Saturday morning cartoons all at once), it takes the tired superhero genre and finds new ways of playing with it, giving us all of the different iterations of Spider-Man at once.  It's a great message movie as well for young people ("be happy with the world you live in, but try to change it for the better" is a message some adults could also use), but it never feels overly familiar or preachy.  Honestly-I have very little bad to say here-there's a possibility that some of the jokes might not age well, and it's clear that MCU is planning on duplicating a lot of the story beats from this movie on a grander scale, but that's just a testament to how well this is put together.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes went for a carbon-copy of the Oscar lineup, both in terms of winners & nominees, while the BAFTA Awards went with Spider-Man over Incredibles and Isle of Dogs in a three-wide lineup.  In terms of sixth place, I think it was a distant sixth place to be honest, and I think Oscar would've preferred Aardman's Early Man in a slight bid over the commercial success of The Grinch (which they already did in 2000 in a pretty big way in the tech categories).
Films I Would Have Nominated: I know that part of this is my inner-nerd showing, but I am such a sucker for the Teen Titans Go franchise on Cartoon Network, despite being way too old to be into such things, and I would have found room for its big screen adventure in this field.

Oscar’s Choice: Despite dominating the precursors, you have to assume that Spider-Man didn't win by much over Incredibles 2 (you should never ever underestimate the power of Pixar in this category), but Sony took its trophy.

My Choice: Super easy call for Spider-Man.  I'd follow that with Isle of Dogs, Incredibles, Ralph, and (way) in the back, Mirai.

And that's our Animated Feature film race.  Is everyone kind of in line that this should've been Spider-Man, and if not-who is the best option here?  If this field was three-wide, who would have been cut (my money is on Ralph and Mirai)?  And between Early Man and The Grinch, who was in sixth place?  Share your thoughts below!

Also in 2018: Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Score, Original Song, Production Design, Cinematography, Costume, Film Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup & Hairstyling, Previously in 2018

Past Best Animated Feature Contests: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2019

OVP: Isle of Dogs (2018)

Film: Isle of Dogs (2018)
Stars: Bryan Cranston, Koyu Rankin, Edward Norton, Bob Balaban, Bill Murray, Jeff Goldblum, Kunichi Nomura, Greta Gerwig, Frances McDormand, Scarlett Johansson, Harvey Keitel, F. Murray Abraham, Tilda Swinton, Liev Schreiber
Director: Wes Anderson
Oscar History: 2 nominations (Best Animated Feature Film, Score)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 3/5 stars

The films of Wes Anderson are an odd conundrum for me.  Usually, when it comes to a deeply-stylized director, an auteur, if you will, I have strong opinions.  They might be good, almost "stan-nish" (Malick, Scorsese, Bergman), or they might be loathed (Inarritu, Russell, McKay).  But Wes Anderson I am almost always ambivalent toward, despite the fact that his films are very specific, so you would think they would recall some sort of reaction from me, either for the good or the bad.  There are movies of his that I like, there are others of his that I disliked, but I've never felt absurdly strongly one way or the other with Anderson.  He just sort of is this weird tangent I sit through at the movie theater.  When he made Isle of Dogs I was smart enough to know that he'd get another Animated Feature nomination so I caught the film before the nominations announcement (it seems likely that he'll eventually win his Oscar in this category, but unlike another stylized director, George Miller, he's worked here long enough for this not to seem strange), but once again I leave the film with a sense of "ehh" neither particularly damning of it but not overwhelmed either.

(Spoilers Ahead) The film's plot is, admittedly ridiculous (though a lot of great movies have ridiculous plots, so don't assume this is an insult).  The mayor of Megasaki (Nomura) in Japan has banished all of the dogs of his city to an island made of trash in the middle of the sea, officially under the pretense that he's trying to rid the city of the animals in hopes of preventing "canine influenza" from spreading to his citizens, but really it's part of a bizarre 1000-year-old vendetta to destroy all of the dogs in Japan.  The mayor's nephew Atari (Rankin) goes to trash island trying to find his dog Spots (Schreiber).  He is led in this quest by Chief (Cranston), whom we learn to be Spots's brother, who hates humans but slowly warms to Atari, and takes on the role as his protector.  They find him while being chased by a series of robot dogs, and eventually we discover that Spots has moved on from Atari, raising his family with a female dog, and makes Chief officially the child's protector.  Together, along with a student reporter named Tracy (Gerwig), they foil the mayor's plan, and eventually Atari becomes the mayor with Tracy dating him, and Chief becomes his protector, with his enigmatic girlfriend Nutmeg (Johansson) by his side.

The movie is beautiful, let's just say that first.  The films of Wes Anderson have a distinctive palette, but here he outdoes himself with mountains of garbage, a gorgeous city (that is clearly meant to be inspired by Tokyo) that Megasaki rules, and a series of distinct but specific dogs.  There's something to be said for the way that he uses the personalities of the dogs to match their voices in a way that works but isn't too wink-y, and some of the details in the movie are catchy.  If you look closely enough at the credits, you'll find that Anjelica Huston is credited as "mute poodle" a character that's in the film but doesn't actually talk, so there's literally no reason for her to be credited other than an in-joke between two old friends.  Perhaps the best such trick is casting Yoko Ono (yes the Yoko Ono) as an Assistant Scientist...named Yoko Ono.

But the movie is (and I know his defenders hate when people say this about him) "too twee" for me.  It has too many characters to really connect with any of them, and it borders that line between honoring and exploiting a culture that's not your own (Anderson is from Houston), with Anderson casting Japanese actors to play the Japanese characters...and then making all of their dogs be played by white actors.  The film is inventive, frequently to a fault, but I don't want to tear down inventive so I'm going with 3 stars because it's technically "good," but I left considerably under-impressed.  This isn't even Anderson stretching like he did with Grand Budapest or finding a new place to test his skills like Mr. Fox-it's just kind of another movie, one similar and borrowing heavily from what he's done before without anything new to say.

OVP: Director (2014)

OVP: Best Director (2014)

The Nominees Were...

Wes Anderson, The Grand Budapest Hotel

Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Birdman (or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Richard Linklater, Boyhood

Bennett Miller, Foxcatcher

Morten Tyldum, The Imitation Game

My Thoughts: I know this has very little to do with the price of eggs, but am I the only person who is always kind of struck with the same thought of "he's really good-looking" every time I see a photo of Bennett Miller?  I have followed his career for over a decade now, and yet it's always a surprise for some reason when I see that piercing gaze and crooked half-grin, and suddenly I'm shell-shocked and playing with my hair.  Anyway, though, we've discussed all of these movies multiple times (like most of awards season, the end stretch is filled with important contests, but the victor is pretty well hinted at).  As a result, I'm going to give away who takes the bronze right now by going to his movie, and that is...

Wes Anderson, someone I never really expected to admire in quite this way.  I remember the first time I caught The Royal Tenenbaums on DVD (it was at my best friend Chris's house in high school, and I was not impressed), and honestly I've left most of his films roughly in that same spot-I get the appeal, but I don't love the movie in the way that his most devoted of followers seem to do.  However, The Grand Budapest Hotel is perhaps the first film, really, where I was smitten (at least the first live-action film).  Anderson's playfulness is still there, but with a grown-up's sensibility, and he is aided by a remarkable piece of work by Ralph Fiennes.  The direction in the film is occasionally quite inspired, and I rather liked some of the snow-covered camera shots and the way he pieced those scenes in, even if Anderson's touches (the cameos, the twee-ness), don't always resonate with me.  All-in-all, though, it was the first of his films that I watched, thoroughly enjoyed, and didn't feel like he had to abandon his own sense of self in order to get to that point, so well done.

Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu is another director that delivered royally in 2014.  I'd say maybe I'm getting soft in my old age, but wait until we get back to 2015 and I have to discuss his gargantuan slog The Revenant and then we'll talk once more.  Birdman, though, there's an energy that I've never seen from him.  The camera-work we've already discussed (click on that Cinematography link below-actually click on all of the links, as there's so much content and fun there to enjoy and I frequently check comments from old articles so don't worry about missing your point to engage), but he genuinely seems to care about these characters, and not just in a "let's see what it's like to destroy their souls" sort of way that he gets in most of his motion pictures.  I feel like Riggan is a thoroughly conceived creation, someone that has a beginning, middle, and an end, but it doesn't feel like his misery (and there is some there) is being forced at us by a director that has become famous for films that occasionally resemble torture.  I truly hope AGI returns to this world in the not too distant future, as it's a wonderful compromise and shows that he can excel in ways that perhaps even he didn't expect were possible.

While AGI and Wes Anderson shocked me this time by making films that I actually enjoyed, there was no such luck for Bennett Miller, who didn't followup Moneyball (hands down my favorite of his movies) with something else I could sink my teeth into, but a dour, dry piece of cinematic toast.  Foxcatcher is the type of film you watch and are baffled by the choices of the director, which surely doesn't boast well for Miller.  After all, why give us such blatantly homosexual overtones with the characters and not follow through with them (you're already probably risking the defamation lawsuit as it is)?  Why introduce a world-class actress like Vanessa Redgrave onto the screen and then give her virtually nothing to do?  And why did you allow your lead actor to essentially let his makeup do all of the acting?  There are occasionally some nice shots (I loved the laps around the expansive, immaculate estate), but that's not a good movie, and the story direction here is all wrong.  At least he's still sexy, though, so he's got that until he returns to baseball.

Richard Linklater actually just did a remarkable film about baseball, but here we have something a little bit more momentous than his great 2016 cinematic entry.  Boyhood is the sort of project that is kind of made for this category, as investing that much time and energy into a film and telling an autobiographical story with actual movie stars is the stuff that cinematic legend is made out of; quite frankly, I wouldn't be shocked if someday people talk about Linklater's quest to make Boyhood in the same way they do David Lean and Lawrence of Arabia or Orson Welles and Citizen Kane.  It's that good of a story.  And it's that good of a movie-the direction here is fabulous.  It speaks to Linklater's confidence as a storyteller and director that he was able to make such a grand, consistent movie without the benefit of reshoots or go-backs.  Boyhood is sentimental without appearing cloying, and the kind of movie where it stands out on its own and yet you can't help but project your own story up on that screen.  Easily his most impressive directorial achievement, and that's saying something.

I don't know why I'm ending on Morten Tyldum.  After all, when he got this nomination, my first thought is "really-they are risking the hot water of not nominating Ava DuVernay and they don't even have the cover of claiming it was to give it to Clint Eastwood?"  I mean, the guy's name is unfortunately apt (sorry-I'm sure he's lovely in person, but that is a moniker that feels invented for the stuck-up rich guy in an Adam Sandler film), but his direction in The Imitation Game is atrociously bad. The film has no stylistic vision, it's a straight biopic (that was not an unintentional pun), and it has such random choices in terms of when to cut back and when to shoot forward-randomly we're out at sea or in a flashback where Alan is the same sort of child he was as an adult.  Shocking!  The story feels false almost throughout, and when it does find a fine moment it's a happy accident that is due to the saving grace of Keira Knightley.  I might have been able to stomach a Best Picture nod in the expanded field due to the import of the subject, but Best Director-not a chance.

Other Precursor Contenders: Best Director is one of those rare fields where the Globes, Guilds, and BAFTA awards all have the same number of nominees (aside from the supporting actor races, this is the only OVP category where this is the case).  This does not guarantee uniformity, however, as we saw with the Golden Globes where Miller and Tyldum were ousted in favor of Ava DuVernay and David Fincher (Gone Girl)-the win went to Linklater.  The DGA also skipped Bennett Miller, but did so to get Clint Eastwood into the lineup (one of those rare years where Clint had traction but couldn't translate at the Globes or the Oscars in this category), and gave their trophy to Inarritu.  Finally the BAFTA Awards randomly decided to give out the Miller and Tyldum slots to James Marsh (The Theory of Everything) and Damien Chazelle (Whiplash), meaning that this is the first year since the expanded fields where every director of a Best Picture nominee landed at least one major precursor (Linklater took the BAFTA).  As a result, it's kind of hard to predict who was in sixth place, though popular opinion at the time was between Eastwood and DuVernay, and considering that his film did better and he's beloved by AMPAS, my guess is that Clint just missed out.

Directors I Would Have Nominated: Well not Morten Tyldum, that's for damn sure.  I would have thrown in Jonathan Glazer for his mesmerizing Under the Skin, proving that occasionally a giant hiatus doesn't lead to disappointment (though come on dude-you can get more than one out a decade).  I also would have included Dan Gilroy's challenging, provocative look at the media Nightcrawler, which is stylistically wonderful and told like a horror film even though it isn't obviously one, but what an inspired way to present your movie.  Honestly, that film just looks more impressive with age.

Oscar’s Choice: In what I genuinely think was a close race, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu pulled off a slight upset over Richard Linklater to take his first Best Director trophy.

My Choice: I actually really love what AGI is doing in his picture, but Linklater is batting in the all-time leagues with Boyhood so it's not much of a competition.  Anderson is in third (we already covered that though-pay attention), followed by Miller and finally Tyldum.

Those were my thoughts-how about yours?  Do you still fly your flag high for the Birdman camp or are you with me in Boyhood town?  Who was closer to that Oscar nomination-Clint or Ava?  And does anyone want to defend the Morten Tyldum nomination?  I'm hearing cases down in the comments!

Also in 2014: Actress, Actor, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Documentary Short, Live Action Short, Animated Short, Previously in 2014

Past Best Director Contests: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013

OVP: Original Screenplay (2014)

OVP: Best Original Screenplay (2014)

The Nominees Were...

Alejandro G. Inarritu, Nicolas Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Jr., and Armando Bo, Birdman

Richard Linklater, Boyhood

E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman, Foxcatcher

Wes Anderson and Hugo Guiness, The Grand Budapest Hotel

Dan Gilroy, Nightcrawler

My Thoughts: All right, we're getting this thing done.  For you this might be spread over the course of a week, but I'm writing our next seven articles in a row right now so that we can finally bid a fond farewell to 2014 and start heading into the next chapter (hint: my favorite chapter this millennium) of the OVP.  Until then, we have a disappointingly male lineup (seriously-no female screenwriters at all?), but one that vastly improves on Adapted Screenplay (see links below) for 2014.

We'll start with what may be the most difficult of the films to judge, which is of course Boyhood.  Richard Linklater's magnum opus (seriously-doesn't it already feel like this movie should have won the Oscar over Birdman in Best Picture?), is a sight to behold, but in terms of traditional screenplays, it's hard to judge.  After all, it's very clear that Linklater, while he somewhat had an idea of what was going to happen as the years went on, clearly rewrote to match the personalities and persona of his star.  He had no way of knowing, for example, that Ellar Coltrane wouldn't turn into some he-man jock where being a gangly hipster at parties would no longer fit the mold.  The film's writing, though, is unbelievably natural and raw, and we get a truly expressive, improbable linking together of four different lives.  All-in-all, while the screenplay isn't what you'd instantly shine a light on when reviewing the picture (that would be the directing and writing), it's still something that glues together a magical story, and is intensely sharp, much like so many of Linklater's other pictures.

We turn next to a film that is entirely dependent on its screenplay, and the sharp words being spoken onscreen in Birdman.  The movie is a series of wonderful cuts and edits and shots, but none of that would mean anything without the biting monologues that come out of the mouths of Stone, Keaton, and Norton alike.  Honestly it still baffles my mind that a film such as this, so full of verve came out of the dour mind of Alejandro Inarritu, none of whose films before or since really resonated with me, but here it just works.  I keep thinking of the way that so many of the speeches are meant to not only be convincing the audience and the listeners, but the speakers themselves, as the writers shrewdly observe that this is a group of people who talk first and listen second.  It's a wonderfully-explosive series of moments and I am in awe of what this team pulled together.

Unlike the rest of these movies, Nightcrawler is that inevitable original screenplay nominee that is getting its only citation of this year's Oscars for writing, which is a shame in that it's better than all but one of these movies overall.  A lot of that rests in Dan Gilroy's fingers, as so much of this film is about peeling back layers.  Think, for example, about the terrific story structure of having Jake Gyllenhaal, cautiously handsome and with those disarming doe eyes, become a sociopath of unspeakable contempt as the film progresses, and how our audience proxy is not a strong, confident woman, but a weak-willed protagonist far over her head.  The film is filled with blistering writing, chastising the news media who only wants a car crash (in the wake of the Donald Trump nightmare we're experiencing, this film has only gotten more ominous).  The movie is ahead-of-its-time and devastating, parading as a dark comedy even if there's so much tragedy underneath.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is really two films when it comes to the screenplay.  Its story, after all, is relatively predictable and occasionally even underwritten.  Considering how good she ended up being in Brooklyn just a year later, it seems a pity to think of how poorly done someone like Saoirse Ronan's Agatha is, but the writers frequently just interject Wes Anderson regulars willy-nilly throughout the picture, and the actual structure of the film is sometimes lacking...except when it comes to Ralph Fiennes.  Fiennes' series of bon mots, wonderful asides, and ribald ribbing of everyone in sight (even himself) is a glorious treasure, and I cannot believe he didn't land a well-deserved Oscar citation for such a performance.  Hats have to go off to Anderson for giving us so many quotables from such a man, but it's clear that he built the entire film around the character, then rushed the rest of the cast through making for an uneven screenplay.

The one true dud of the bunch, I'm sorry to say, is Foxcatcher.  Part of the film's problem is that it's unwilling to say what it wants to, perhaps out of fear of a lawsuit, but the underwritten homosexual moments of the film (particularly John du Pont's lust over Mark Schultz, and the way that it is implied that Mark gives in to those demands in hopes of recapturing his Olympic glory) is a huge crutch on the impact of the film and its performances.  The female roles are vastly ignored in the picture (poor Sienna Miller-does her agent hate her or something with these meaningless parts in important films?), and while occasionally the film is insightful (the look at how out-of-touch and ridiculous the mega-rich are is perhaps the only interesting angle of the story that actually works onscreen), the moments that fail are too much to outweigh the occasional glimmer.

Other Precursor Contenders: The Globes combine adapted and original into one category, so only three originals were cited, though all were nominated here: Birdman (their victor), Boyhood, and The Grand Budapest Hotel.  The BAFTA Awards split their categories up, and weirdly enough nominated five Oscar nominees, but not all five in this category as joining The Grand Budapest Hotel (their victor), Boyhood, Nightcrawler, and Birdman was Whiplash, which suffered from quite a bit of category confusion as there was a scene that was released from the film as a short picture, but it was really just a snippet from the eventual movie so adapted always felt somewhat specious.  The WGA also put Whiplash in original, and actually duplicated the BAFTA lineup verbatim, including having Grand Budapest in the winner's chair.

Films I Would Have Nominated: I surely would have made room for the wonderful ensemble work of Pride, which actually finds a way to give a dozen characters stories and personalities, which is not an easy task for such a movie.  And I would have included the provocative but brilliant Stranger by the Lake amongst the nominees-it may have been too risque for older Academy members, but its story unfolds in an eerie series of shots that feel almost alien from our universe, and a little gay sex never hurt anybody.

Oscar’s Choice: In one of the closest battles of the evening AMPAS' love of Birdman triumphed over The Grand Budapest Hotel's otherwise impressive awards haul.

My Choice: For me it's a tight race between Linklater, Inarritu, and Gilroy, as all are turning in superb pieces of work that would have clobbered in adapted.  I think I'll stick to Boyhood in the lead, followed very closely by Nightcrawler, then Birdman, Grand Budapest, and Foxcatcher way in the back.

Those are my thoughts-what about you?  Are you siding with the Academy on picking the nastier side of Hollywood's celebrity culture, or are you with my preference for the languid growth of Boyhood?  Where should Whiplash have gotten nominated by the Oscars-here or where it landed in adapted?  And does anyone actually like Foxcatcher?  Share your thoughts in the comments!

Also in 2014: Adapted Screenplay, Foreign Language Film, Animated Feature Film, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Original Score, Original Song, Art Direction, Costume, Editing, Visual Effects, Makeup, Documentary Short, Live Action Short, Animated Short, Previously in 2014

Past Best Original Screenplay Contests: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013