Best Screenplay 1962

[ITALIANO]

Original this year is very dense, and would deserve several pages rather than just the few lines I can write now. With the obvious exception of That Touch of Mink (but then back then Cary Grant comedies and Doris Day comedies were often nominated in this category, and this movie has both), the other four nominees are at least interesting - even Freud is a flawed but admirable attempt to deal with such a complex subject. The other three are even more than interesting - they are historically important, each in the context of its country's cinema. But I have to agree with Mister Tee - while worthy of respect, Through a Glass Darkly isn't my favorite Bergman movie - even from his early period, I prefer, say, Wild Strawberries and The Seventh Seal. It's a bit too intentionally remote for my tastes. But Last Year at Marienbad is a fascinating intellectual exercise, and I might have voted for it if I hadn't picked two Resnais scripts already (and I could pick a third soon). Congratulations to the Writing Branch for having nominated it, though. Anyway, this leaves me with - surprise! - Divorce Italian Style, THE Italian comedy par excellence (so popular here that it was shown even two days ago on tv - in prime time). This isn't just an enjoyable and very funny movie - it'S also both a satire of Sicilian habits and vices (including, of course, machismo) AND a satire of those Italian laws which were culturally the result of such habits, such vices (after the movie came out, the "crime of honor" law was canceled - so this movie, so influenced by Italian society, had in turn an impact on Italian society). Complete with an ironically bitter ending, this masterpiece is generally ignored on this board - a sure sign that it's VERY good.

But I followed this board (how couldn't I?) in voting for To Kill a Mockongbird in Adapted. With the exception of David and Lisa (but then this must have seemed very avant-garde by American cinema standards back then) these are all very goof scripts, and especilally Lawrence of Arabia deserves consideration - but To Kill a Mockingbird is really a masterful adaptation for the screen of a contemporary classic of literature.

[ITALIANO]

To answer BJ's question, he Man Who Shot Liberty Valance was indeed an adaptation. It was adapted from a published short story by the prolific Dorothy M. Johnson (The Hanging Tree, A Man Called Horse). The credits read "based on a story by" as opposed to simply "story by" which would indicate the story or outline was written (or claimed to be written) for the film.

Obviously I was unaware of the existential difference indicated by the words "based on a".

[Mister Tee]

To answer BJ's question, he Man Who Shot Liberty Valance was indeed an adaptation. It was adapted from a published short story by the prolific Dorothy M. Johnson (The Hanging Tree, A Man Called Horse). The credits read "based on a story by" as opposed to simply "story by" which would indicate the story or outline was written (or claimed to be written) for the film.

Obviously I was unaware of the existential difference indicated by the words "based on a".

[Greg]

I'd have loved to have seen the movie Kubrick and Nabokov might have made even five years later, after the break-up of the Production Code.

I haven't seen it, but there was a 1997 remake of Lolita starring Jeremy Irons as Humbert Humbert.

[Big Magilla]

To answer BJ's question, he Man Who Shot Liberty Valance was indeed an adaptation. It was adapted from a published short story by the prolific Dorothy M. Johnson (The Hanging Tree, A Man Called Horse). The credits read "based on a story by" as opposed to simply "story by" which would indicate the story or outline was written (or claimed to be written) for the film.

[The Original BJ]

I agree that the Adapted Screenplay slate this year offered an abundance of riches. My personal choice would have been Jules and Jim, an all-time favorite of mine, and one whose witty and incisive script is one of its greatest assets. The Manchurian Candidate is also world-class, and was absolutely robbed of a slot. After that, take your pick of the many strong options others have cited (though wouldn't The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance qualify as an adaptation?) I imagine it would be hard for most people to cut their favorites down to five in this year.

David and Lisa is certainly a better writing nominee than some of the bloated Best Picture nominees would have been, but given what was left out, it's not an especially exciting choice. It's sensitive, with obvious moments of tenderness, but it's a bit ragged in terms of writing craft -- despite serious subject matter, the plot itself is actually pretty thin. By the end of the movie, I didn't feel like the story had taken me much of anywhere.

What's most notable about The Miracle Worker is how well the material avoids the kind of gooey uplift so typical of this genre. (Watch it back to back with something like The Theory of Everything and I'd imagine you'd really notice how much more honest the earlier film feels.) And the film version is opened up to a pretty decent degree so that it doesn't feel like an embalmed stage piece. Still, it's a play adaptation, and more a showcase for the two great performances at its center than an overwhelming screenwriting achievement.

Lolita's tagline was famously "How did they ever make a movie of Lolita?" I'd argue the answer is, "They got almost all of the way there." When I read the novel about six or seven years ago, I remember thinking, this comes off as shocking NOW, I can't imagine how readers felt fifty years ago. The movie, of course, softens the sexual content quite a bit -- you can see the obvious compromises the filmmakers were forced to make in that department. And yet, so much of the novel's satire of materialism is captured perfectly on screen -- I like what Mister Tee said about elements of the book appearing in the movie in subtle, cinematic ways. I'd have loved to have seen the movie Kubrick and Nabokov might have made even five years later, after the break-up of the Production Code. But their achievement within such limitations this year is notable nonetheless.

You can see why, in the midst of a 7-category sweep, Lawrence of Arabia still lost the screenplay prize. Its most exciting elements -- sweeping battle scenes, gorgeous shots of the desert, a soaring score, Peter O'Toole's commanding performance -- tended not to be literary. But it's still worth acknowledging how much better the screenplay is for this film than so many epics of the era. While other films in the genre have presented history in a fairly staid manner, Robert Bolt (and his blacklisted compatriot) really seem to have a point of view about T.E. Lawrence here -- there's almost a quiet character study hidden beneath the film's epic qualities that makes it resonate to a far greater degree than films of this type usually allow. It also had quite a bit of witty dialogue, making the film seem far more light on its feet than its running time would suggest. In the end, I think the movie's strengths are still more directorial than literary, but this is Bolt's strongest career screenwriting achievement.

But I echoed the Academy's choice and went with To Kill a Mockingbird. There aren't too many all-time classic novels that have been turned into all-time classic films, but Mockingbird would certainly have to count. The adaptation is hugely impressive, juggling numerous disparate story threads (Atticus and the trial, Scout/Jem/Boo) without ever making the novel's content feel truncated, as so many adaptations do. It's one of the most powerful films about racial injustice, one of the most touching portraits of childhood, and one of the most authentically captured accounts of small-town Southern life ever put on film. Horton Foote is a writer whose work has often felt sensitive but rather half-hearted to me -- I'd rate his later win in that category. But here, he brings out the best elements of his own gifts, as well as the best of Harper Lee's great novel, and merits recognition for his finest hour.

[Big Magilla]

For adapted, I’m calling it: 1962 offered the most broadly exceptional set of candidates in any year of Academy history. Some of the most deserving managed to secure nomination, but way too much was left out. Jules and Jim and The Manchurian Candidate should have been automatic choices (I’d have had a devilish time choosing between the two for the win). Billy Budd and The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner are very strong runners-up. In many years, Advise and Consent or Days of Wine and Roses would have been easy qualifiers. And, in the category of “Okay, just a movie version of a play, but WHAT a play!”…Long Day’s Journey Into Night is, for me, one of the great pieces of writing of the 20th century.

The Loneliness of the Long distance Runner was a 1963 release in L.A. and not eligible. Lumet and his producers did the right thing by Long Day's Journey Into Night. They did not, as many other have done, take or give credit to the director or someone else for the screenplay simply by changing the stage direction without changing a single word of dialogue. Sole writing credit went to Eugene O'Neill who died in 1953 for his posthumously performed Pulitzer and Tony award-winning play. It was not eligible in either screenplay category but it could have and should have been nominated for Best Picture.

[Kellens101]

http://www.allmovie.com/movie/that-touch-of-mink-v49292
Here is review of That Touch of Mink from AllMovie by Craig Butler that I think is pretty spot-on.

[Kellens101]

Gosh, what in incredible year. My votes would go the haunting Through a Glass Darkly and the wonderfully superb adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird. I would cite all the titles Mister Tee already mentioned as major omissions, with Jules and Jim and the Manchurian Candidate particularly saddening. Jules and Jim is a beautiful, poignant and dazzling tale of the love between three people and the effects of their romance. The Manchurian Candidate is a sinister, darkly comic, thrilling masterpiece that is as shocking and frightening in 2015 than I was in 1962. Both are two of the best films of the year and the decade and remain timeless classics, along with many of the year's other films, like Lawrence of Arabia and To Kill a Mockingbird. Why were Freud, That Touch of Mink and David and Lisa nominated over some of the far better films this year? Those films aren't bad, they're just much more minor and not as good as these other movies.

[Big Magilla]

Magilla, I have to question your dismissal of Divorce – Italian Style as wink-wink. God knows there are many comedies of the era – even just from Italy – that merit that designation, but not Divorce-Italian Style, which was a very funny, cleverly plotted satire of both Italian macho and Italy’s ridiculous divorce laws. It may be that voters chose this as the lighter alternative among the several subtitled efforts on offer. But it may simply be that they, like me, found this the most ingenious and most pleasurable. One (so far lonely) vote for the Academy’s choice. (And I see that, for first time since 1974, I’ve echoed Oscar voters in both categories.)

I saw this in the 60s and tried to watch it again in the 80s, but I just found it annoying. Interestingly, Pietro Germi was never again nominated for an Oscar while conversely he was passed over by Italy's David di Donatello Awards but went on to win two of them for Seduced and Abandoned (1964) and The Birds, the Bees and the Italians (1966), neither of which I've seen.

[Mister Tee]

For adapted, I’m calling it: 1962 offered the most broadly exceptional set of candidates in any year of Academy history. Some of the most deserving managed to secure nomination, but way too much was left out. Jules and Jim and The Manchurian Candidate should have been automatic choices (I’d have had a devilish time choosing between the two for the win). Billy Budd and The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner are very strong runners-up. In many years, Advise and Consent or Days of Wine and Roses would have been easy qualifiers. And, in the category of “Okay, just a movie version of a play, but WHAT a play!”…Long Day’s Journey Into Night is, for me, one of the great pieces of writing of the 20th century.

Given all that, it’s disappointing David and Lisa took up a slot. The film was a little before my time, but I gather its success was A Man and a Woman-ish – an art-house film whose audiences mistook its simplicity/sentimentality for something genuine, and inflated it beyond its achievement. It’s the only nominee that flat out doesn’t belong.

The Miracle Worker isn’t as good as a number of the alternates I cited – and its source-play can’t hold a candle to Long Day’s Journey. But it’s a nicely opened-out version that doesn’t feel stage-bound, and it’s a powerful, gripping battle between two quite strong characters. A perfectly respectable nominee.

It’s natural to think of Lawrence of Arabia as primarily a director’s (and cinematographer’s) achievement – many of the film’s images can be instantly called to mind. But one shouldn’t lose sight of the film’s quality on the writing level. Pretty much every film of its kind at the time would have worked to make Lawrence a scrutable character – one audiences could “identify with”. Robert Bolt’s script took the then-revolutionary step of viewing Lawrence from a distance, as enigma – and the film is clearly more memorable for that. I’m not voting for Lawrence, because there are other, more writerly achievements on the ballot. But it’s a very worthy contender.

Lolita seemed exactly the sort of book Hollywood would hopelessly botch. Nabokov’s novel achieved notoriety for its salaciousness, but its literary quality – the sneaky wit and wordplay -- made it a delight for more sophisticated readers, and replicating that aspect seemed beyond the efforts of mainstream film. But Kubrick and Nabokov, working together, somehow found filmic equivalents for the literary curlicues; things show up in the margins that resonate for readers of the novel. This is in addition to making Humbert’s central obsession something recognizable and not merely sleazy; the main plot plays as both humorous and believable. All told, a very good film, and a screenplay well deserving of its citation.

But, like many, I’m going with To Kill a Mockingbird. I actually hadn’t seen the film in many years, until watching it at my parents’ about a month ago. I’d been somewhat dreading seeing it again – fearful that it would be less, more simplistic than my youthful memories. It does reflect the simpler liberal views of an earlier time – as the dread sequel/first draft has made clear, real-life Atticus Finches were sometimes less noble in the 60s than they’d been in the 30s. And, for me, the film has a little of what I consider a failing in contemporary liberalism: a tendency to favor moral superiority over results (i.e., Atticus loses the case and his client gets killed, but, by god, he shows how much better a man he is than the rest, so, happy ending). But these are small quibbles. The film, I was happy to see, remains a pleasing blend of racially charged courtroom drama with one of the most insightful looks at childhood ever captured on American film. The last reel still brings tears to the eyes, and the film as a whole is pretty wonderful. It gets my vote.

Original screenplay that year leaned heavily on overseas efforts, and deadline-missing films carried over from 1961. My alternates would be of the same ilk: Peeping Tom I know qualified that year (though its first release was in 1960); and The Exterminating Angel and Cleo from 5 to 7 are two worthy efforts whose Academy-eligible year is unknown to me. After that, there are two films that cultists have heavily boosted in the decades since --The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and Ride the High Country – but neither is an especial favorite of Western-non-enthusiast me.

OK, I loved That Touch of Mink when I was 10 years old, mostly because Mickey, Roger and Yogi were in it (it was right after Roger’s legendary 61 home run year, and I was Yankee-mad). I saw it one other time -- in the 80s, I believe – and found it, unsurprisingly, smarmy and not very funny. It was, mercifully, the last of the too many Doris Day comedies to get cited in this category.

You have to give credit to Last Year at Marienbad: it’s been dividing audiences for five decades now – enthralling and pissing off in just about equal number. I’d seen it in high school, and been essentially baffled by it; then I gave it another watch sometime in the last five years…and still can’t say I loved it. It had an intriguing set-up, but after a while the repetition, and refusal to cohere, wore me out. The only thing I fully enjoyed was that game the guy kept playing (I can’t recall if it was with cards or matches) involving removing items and trying to leave the last one. Just not my kind of movie.

Freud is a bit like Spielberg/Kushner’s Lincoln – covering a brief period in its subject’s life (in this case, primarily one patient) and having it stand for the achievement of his entire life. This makes the film far more palatable than the standard bio-pic. It helps, too, that the film is structured around resolving that one patient’s psychosis; it gives the narrative zing, as it plays a bit like a detective story. None of this makes the film great, but it’s better than one might expect given the subject.

Through a Glass Darkly was part of Bergman’s austere period -- before the more stylistically daring films like Persona, Hour of the Wolf and Cries and Whispers. It’s a very stripped-down, stark psychological drama, quite powerful. I can understand people voting for it, but I have to say I prefer the somewhat more baroque Bergmans – I admire these dark “has-god-abandoned us?” efforts , but don’t especially enjoy them.

Magilla, I have to question your dismissal of Divorce – Italian Style as wink-wink. God knows there are many comedies of the era – even just from Italy – that merit that designation, but not Divorce-Italian Style, which was a very funny, cleverly plotted satire of both Italian macho and Italy’s ridiculous divorce laws. It may be that voters chose this as the lighter alternative among the several subtitled efforts on offer. But it may simply be that they, like me, found this the most ingenious and most pleasurable. One (so far lonely) vote for the Academy’s choice. (And I see that, for first time since 1974, I’ve echoed Oscar voters in both categories.)

[Precious Doll]

Original: Through a Glass Darkly

Another easy choice as the Resnais film's strength lies in it's direction.

Adapted: To Kill a Mockingbird

What a hard choice to make between TKAM and Lolita, two of my all time favourite films and books! Lolita is seemingly unadaptable but the screenplay works (unlike the 1990's version). However, To Kill Mockingbird is so faithful to it's source when it could have quiet easily have gone off track. The other nominees in this category would be formidable in most other years but are also runs in this year.

Lots of notable omissions: Billy Budd, The Manchurian Candidate, Advise and Consent, Birdman of Alcatraz, Sweet Bird of Youth, What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?, Long Days Journey into Night, The Trial, A View from the Bridge, Walk on the Wild Side and a slew for foreign language films (at least if we are going by 1962 premier release date).

1962 was indeed one of the greatest years for cinema.

[Big Magilla]

Original

If it were up to me, I would take out the two one-joke comedies, That Touch of Mink and the wink-wink winner, Divorce-Italian Style and replace them with Peeping Tom and Victim, but, alas, it's not up to me.

The screenplay for Freud is quite good and Bergman's Through a Glass Darkly was his best of the period, but I have to go with the seemingly simple, yet amazingly complex Last Year at Marienbad.

Adapted

This year was an abundance of riches in this category with Billy Budd and Advise & Consent among the most sorely overlooked. I'd nominate them both over The Miracle Worker which was William Gibson's "adaptation" of his own play which was itself an adaptation of his screenplay for the 1957 TV version from Helen Keller's book. There really wasn't anything left for him to adapt.

Vladimir Nabokov's adaptation of his novel, Lolita and Eleanor Perry's adaptation of David and Lisa were both well-written screenplays, but neither stands up to the two titans in the room, Lawrence of Arabia and To Kill a Mockingbird. Both were brilliant, but I have to go with Horton Foote's Oscar winning adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird which generously blends all the elements of Harper Lee's novel into one beautifully realized film.

[Kellens101]

What were the best screenplays of 1962?