Best Screenplay 1996

1927/28 through 1997

What were the best original and adapted screenplays of 1996?

Fargo (Ethan Coen, Joel Coen)
11
23%
Jerry Maguire (Cameron Crowe)
0
No votes
Lone Star (John Sayles)
5
11%
Secrets & Lies (Mike Leigh)
8
17%
Shine (Jan Sardi, Scott Hicks)
0
No votes
The Crucible (Arthur Miller)
2
4%
The English Patient (Anthony Minghella)
12
26%
Hamlet (Kenneth Branagh)
0
No votes
Sling Blade (Billy Bob Thornton)
4
9%
Trainspotting (John Hodge)
5
11%
 
Total votes: 47

Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Best Screenplay 1996

Post by Greg »

Another thought on Hamlet. Why is not changing a word of dialogue a good idea? After all, Hamlet was Danish; but, Shakespeare wrote all of his dialogue in English, not Danish, in order to serve his audience. Why should the same thing not be done today and update the dialogue in Hamlet to modern English in order to serve the audience alive today?
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Best Screenplay 1996

Post by The Original BJ »

Big Magilla wrote:
The Original BJ wrote: Maybe it's just because I like Secrets & Lies best of all of his films, but I really don't understand how anyone could watch that movie and think, even with knowledge of Leigh's process, that too much improvisation diminished the achievement of the writer.
It may be my sole opinion, but I see the problem as the exact opposite. Leigh's screenplay is not diminished, but enhanced by the additional contributors who do not have screen credit.
That's what I meant. Not that the MOVIE is diminished, but that Leigh doesn't deserve as much praise because he didn't "write" it, which seems like a strange argument to me given what is actually on screen.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Screenplay 1996

Post by Big Magilla »

[quote="The Original BJ"]
Maybe it's just because I like Secrets & Lies best of all of his films, but I really don't understand how anyone could watch that movie and think, even with knowledge of Leigh's process, that too much improvisation diminished the achievement of the writer.[quote]
It may be my sole opinion, but I see the problem as the exact opposite. Leigh's screenplay is not diminished, but enhanced by the additional contributors who do not have screen credit.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Best Screenplay 1996

Post by The Original BJ »

Original was a much better field this year, and quite a respectable slate. Among alternates, I'd advocate for Breaking the Waves (which obviously wasn't going to make it) and The People vs. Larry Flynt (which might have, but it's not surprising there wasn't room for it either.)

I concur with pretty much everyone that Shine is the first to go here. It's pretty standard triumph of the human spirit fare, with little in the way of invention. It's amazing how often material like this can get a pass when from a foreign country, as if that somehow makes it more artful (though obviously, even the homegrown A Beautiful Mind duped plenty of critics who should know better in the same way).

Jerry Maguire is one of the better examples of a kind of movie that was quite common in the '90s, but which seems to have all but vanished now: the mainstream romantic comedy for grown-ups. I think it's a pretty amiable movie, with a number of lines of dialogue that just instantly entered the zeitgeist. But I also think it's a bit overstuffed with story elements, and runs on too long, though oddly, I think the prominence of both the romantic and sports plot lines only helped the movie become such a popular hit with both genders. I voted for Cameron Crowe's other nomination; this time I'll go elsewhere.

I think the remaining three nominees represent the best scripts written by their respective filmmakers, so it becomes a tough choice for which to choose. John Sayles has made numerous films that zero in on specific regions of America with great detail and local color, but none of them top Lone Star, which begins with a beautifully symbolic image (of digging up the past, one of the major themes of the piece) and goes on to introduce a wonderful collection of flawed, human characters and compelling story threads. Narratively, the film's mystery/flashback elements are hugely engaging, but they also resonate thematically within a film that's about a lot of things: the effect of the past on the present, shifts in cultural mores over time, the joys and challenges of living in a town that's part of one nation but essentially straddles another. There are moments in other Sayles films -- even ones I like a good bit -- where I've felt his writing has had a lugubrious quality to it, where too much focus on the mundanity of daily life bogs down the narrative momentum. But I have no such qualm here, as I think all of the film's details congeal very well to create a rich whole.

Maybe it's just because I like Secrets & Lies best of all of his films, but I really don't understand how anyone could watch that movie and think, even with knowledge of Leigh's process, that too much improvisation diminished the achievement of the writer. I guess I could see someone arguing that about something more scattershot, like Happy-Go-Lucky. But Secrets & Lies has a plot line that's very well layed-out overall, individual scenes that often carry on for a while but feel very deliberate in their crescendos, and a lot of insightful dialogue that hardly feels like the work of actors inventing on the cuff. I think Secrets & Lies is a very smart and touching movie, which avoids all of the potentially shrill aspects of its premise (white mom discovers the black daughter she never knew she had!) while at the same time never pretending that the racial subtext isn't a key element of its story. Given that this is the last time to vote for Leigh in this game, and I haven't done so before, I feel a bit discouraged I can't give him my vote here, for the film which I think best epitomizes the lived-in qualities of his approach to filmmaking.

But this is also the last time to vote for the Coen brothers, and I haven't picked them as writers yet either, and ultimately Fargo strikes me as the most impressive piece of writing here. This film, too, feels like the synthesis of these filmmakers' best qualities -- the stylized characters spouting wonderfully inventive dialogue, the black sense of humor that runs through even the most morbid and violent scenes, and a bleak yet somehow still empathetic attitude toward humanity (best embodied by Marge Gunderson's "Isn't it a beautiful day" speech). As with so many Coen films, Fargo is a terrific genre inversion -- it's a meticulously constructed thriller with laughs, a film noir transplanted to the rural Midwest, and a mystery with the most unlikely of gumshoes at its center. It's the most inventive screenplay of the bunch, and in the original category, especially in a competitive year, that's going to be what pushes me in the Coens' direction.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Best Screenplay 1996

Post by ITALIANO »

Big Magilla wrote:I doubt many of the people voting for it either saw or read the original play. By the same token I wonder how many who voted for Hamlet were voting for the "to be or not to be" scene in front of the mirror as opposed to those who thought Branagh expanded Shakespeare's original play from what they only remembered from Olivier's truncated version.
The voters, maybe - but I can't imagine that the writers, or most writers (and it's the writers who select the nominees), haven't read Hamlet or Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf...
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Best Screenplay 1996

Post by Greg »

Just to clarify, I was saying that, regardless of whether Branagh should have been nominated, it is possible for there to be substantial screenplay work to adapt a Shakespeare play without changing any dialogue.

For example, you could take the scene in Hamlet where Prince Hamlet says, "Alas, poor Yorick!. . ." You cold change this to where the sight of the skull causes Hamlet to faint, and then cut to a dream sequence. Hamlet is at the head of a banquet table and four servants carry a giant platter with a roasted pig on top of it. As the servants set the pig down at the table, it morphs into Yorick's skeleton; and, the servants morph into Claudius, Gertrude, Polonius, and Ophelia. Hamlet pulls an apple out of the mouth of Yorick's skull, detaches it from the skeleton, lifts it, and says, "Alas, poor Yorick!. . ."

This, without changing a word of dialogue, would substantially alter Hamlet from Shakespeare's original; and, this would all be done from the screenwriter in the script, not the director. A movie full of such scenes would entail a great amount of work from the writer.

Like I said, I still have yet to see Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet. Perhaps I have already done more to earn an Best Adapted Screenplay nomination than did Branagh, but my point still stands.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Screenplay 1996

Post by Big Magilla »

Mister Tee wrote:Just to be clear: I'm not saying the Branagh nomination was a good one, or one I'd have even considered making. I'm just saying that the amount of ridicule it received was somewhat specific to the Holy Writ level on which Shakespeare's writing is viewed. Ernest Lehman's screenplay for virginia Woolf amounted mostly to altering the occasional "monkey tits" to "angel boobs", but, except for Albee (who wondered if the nomination should have been for typing), no one really questioned the nomination. Even the infamously mocked "Additional dialogue by Samuel Taylor" credit on the Fairbanks/Pickford Taming of the Shrew seems Bard-centric -- would "Screenplay by Tennessee Williams/Additional dialogue by Richard Brooks" on Sweet Bird of Youth have caused equivalent guffaws?
Ernest Lehman's screenplay for Virginia Woolf also included stage directions that allowed the play to be opened up besides which I doubt many of the people voting for it either saw or read the original play. By the same token I wonder how many who voted for Hamlet were voting for the "to be or not to be" scene in front of the mirror as opposed to those who thought Branagh expanded Shakespeare's original play from what they only remembered from Olivier's truncated version.

Neither Olivier nor Welles took credit for their Shakespearean adaptations although two other writers are credited with textural changes to Richard III. Later directors including Zeffirelli and Polanski in the modern era, however, have suggesting that the stigma that attached to the 1929 version of The Taming of the Shrew is no longer there.

I think a closer comparison to Branagh's version of Hamlet would be Lumet's film of Long Day's Journey Into Night which doesn't change a single line of O'Neill's dialogue yet by focusing his camera on Hepburn more than Richardson changes the focus of the play to an extent from the father to the mother. The sole writing credit on the film is O'Neill's and not because he had anything to do with the screenplay. He died nine years before the film was made.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Best Screenplay 1996

Post by Mister Tee »

Just to be clear: I'm not saying the Branagh nomination was a good one, or one I'd have even considered making. I'm just saying that the amount of ridicule it received was somewhat specific to the Holy Writ level on which Shakespeare's writing is viewed. Ernest Lehman's screenplay for virginia Woolf amounted mostly to altering the occasional "monkey tits" to "angel boobs", but, except for Albee (who wondered if the nomination should have been for typing), no one really questioned the nomination. Even the infamously mocked "Additional dialogue by Samuel Taylor" credit on the Fairbanks/Pickford Taming of the Shrew seems Bard-centric -- would "Screenplay by Tennessee Williams/Additional dialogue by Richard Brooks" on Sweet Bird of Youth have caused equivalent guffaws?
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Screenplay 1996

Post by Big Magilla »

Greg wrote:
The Original BJ wrote:But -- and I'm mainly speaking from my personal experience here -- the process of screenwriting is MOSTLY the process of writing dialogue.
Of course, this varies a lot from script to script. For example, if the dialogue of characters if heavily dependent on/related to their physical actions, then the physical descriptions and dialogue would be equally important to a script.
Yes, but as BJ points out in the case of Hamlet, Branagh the writer's mirror directions were likely written with Branagh the director's intentions in mind.
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Best Screenplay 1996

Post by Greg »

The Original BJ wrote:But -- and I'm mainly speaking from my personal experience here -- the process of screenwriting is MOSTLY the process of writing dialogue.
Of course, this varies a lot from script to script. For example, if the dialogue of characters if heavily dependent on/related to their physical actions, then the physical descriptions and dialogue would be equally important to a script.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Best Screenplay 1996

Post by The Original BJ »

Greg wrote:Regarding Hamlet, which with The Crucible and Secrets And Lies is one of the three of the ten films here I have not yet seen, I have read justification for its screenplay nomination on the basis of stage directions. One specific example I read was the decision to have the "To be, or not to be" soliloquy done with a mirror, and, that this decision would be something that would be in the script, not made by the director, as well as not being in the original Shakespeare play.
I have two main thoughts on this.

First, speaking as someone with at least some connection to actual Academy members, as well as many writers voting for the WGA Awards, I can pretty much guarantee you that the vast majority of people voting for screenplay awards are not reading the actual screenplays to these films. Most voters are not seeking out movies that aren't sent to them on screeners, and a decent enough number are even voting for winners without seeing all of the nominees. I definitely have heard of cases where writers have really loved a movie, and wanted to read the screenplay for it, mostly for inspiration/educational purposes. But in terms of using the actual script to evaluate a film's award-worthiness? That's not really happening.

Second, I know a lot of people make the argument that "screenplays are more than dialogue," and that's true -- they're also about narrative and character, setting and theme, etc. But -- and I'm mainly speaking from my personal experience here -- the process of screenwriting is MOSTLY the process of writing dialogue. This isn't to suggest that films with minimal dialogue don't rely on a screenwriter at all -- plenty of movies we'll be discussing in decades ahead, from 2001 to The Red Balloon, are more visually oriented, and I imagine we'll have some interesting conversations about how much the writing influenced the success of those films. But with Hamlet, you can't even explain the nomination away on the basis of plot, as you could in those instances. Justifying a nomination based on stage directions? Sorry, but that's a pretty minimal part of a script, and in many cases, a lot of those stage directions are adjusted AFTER a director has decided how he wants to shoot those scenes. (In this case, director and writer were one, so essentially Branagh's "screenwriting" amounted to communicating how he wanted to direct Shakespeare's play.) Of course, if "to be or not to be" delivered to a mirror is enough for some people, that's fine, but I feel like I'm looking for a lot more heavy lifting than that in choosing the most exemplary writing of the year.
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Best Screenplay 1996

Post by Greg »

Big Magilla wrote:
Greg wrote:Regarding Hamlet, which with The Crucible and Secrets And Lies is one of the three of the ten films here I have not yet seen, I have read justification for its screenplay nomination on the basis of stage directions. One specific example I read was the decision to have the "To be, or not to be" soliloquy done with a mirror, and, that this decision would be something that would be in the script, not made by the director, as well as not being in the original Shakespeare play.
Yes, that was the justification but to me that's a directorial touch, not a writer's touch. He didn't write a single word of dialogue.
Generally, the decision to do the soliloquy with the mirror would be made in the script, while the decisions on camera lengths, camera angles, level of lighting, placement of actors, etc., around the mirror would be made by the director.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19319
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Screenplay 1996

Post by Big Magilla »

Greg wrote:Regarding Hamlet, which with The Crucible and Secrets And Lies is one of the three of the ten films here I have not yet seen, I have read justification for its screenplay nomination on the basis of stage directions. One specific example I read was the decision to have the "To be, or not to be" soliloquy done with a mirror, and, that this decision would be something that would be in the script, not made by the director, as well as not being in the original Shakespeare play.
Yes, that was the justification but to me that's a directorial touch, not a writer's touch. He didn't write a single word of dialogue.
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Best Screenplay 1996

Post by Greg »

Regarding Hamlet, which with The Crucible and Secrets And Lies is one of the three of the ten films here I have not yet seen, I have read justification for its screenplay nomination on the basis of stage directions. One specific example I read was the decision to have the "To be, or not to be" soliloquy done with a mirror, and, that this decision would be something that would be in the script, not made by the director, as well as not being in the original Shakespeare play.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Best Screenplay 1996

Post by Mister Tee »

Mainstream Hollywood releases were so lame in 1996 that indies – which had begun infiltrating Oscar lists in the years preceding -- now stormed the fort in unprecedented fashion. This didn’t exactly amount to a revolution in content –- Fargo and Secrets and Lies may have been off the beaten Oscar-track, but Shine and even the much superior The English Patient operated within fairly traditional forms, simply now released by independent studios. You could make the case, though, that the indie surge accounts for the atypical breakdown in the writing categories: it was a very rare (for the time) case of the original field being hyper-competitive, and voters having to scrounge for candidates under adaptation.

It does seem strange, given the lack of prime candidates in adapted, that the voters passed on Emma, a very solid version of Austen that became a sizable hit without much star-power (Gwyneth being simply a rising talent at the time); perhaps it was just Austen fatigue by then. On the original side, beyond the ones the Academy cited, I’d be an early Payne-booster in advocating Citizen Ruth; I’d also praise Ron Shelton’s second-best sports comedy, Tin Cup, and suggest that, while I wouldn’t have voted for it, Big Night was easily a big enough success with critics and audiences to have scored a nomination in a less competitive year.

It’s funny: many plays have been adapted for the screen in versions extremely faithful to the original – Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? perhaps the premiere example – and no one would bat an eye at seeing them nominated in the screenplay category. But since, here, it’s Shakespeare – Hamlet – the whole thing was treated as the world’s biggest joke. Now, it’s true what BJ says: the main selling point of Branagh’s version had been that it was the first time the play was being done onscreen uncut, which amounted to an essential declaration that not one bit of new screenwriting had been done, making the nomination even easier to mock. But this is hardly the silliest such nomination ever seen. (As for the film: I think there’s lots of good stuff in it, but seeing the familiar material now extended by 15-30 minutes made it feel like a directors’ cut of a movie that was fine as it was. I have to say, in all the many times I’ve seen Hamlet over the years, I never once sat there thinking, If only this could be longer)

People can point to this or that Oscar victory as the prime example of Harvey Weinstein’s sorcery in getting voters to do his bidding, but, for me, nothing will ever top what he did in getting Sling Blade first the nomination and then the win here. You have to understand: Billy Bob Thornton may have had some industry acting recognition for roles in films like One False Move, but, on the morning he was double-nominated, easily 95% of America went “Who?” Yet, somehow, six weeks later, he was a hugely popular figure, and, when his script triumphed over a landslide best picture winner, it was received with delirious enthusiasm. How big a coup was the win? Variety noted it was the first time since the 1957 establishment of the adapted/original categories that a film not competing for best picture had ever won adapted screenplay. (It’s only happened once since, in ’98, against a far weaker best picture nominee) Harvey had engineered an amazing feat: first getting people to consider the film an adaptation (because it was a revision of an earlier short film -- now established as within the rules, but I believe this was the first such instance), then making Billy Bob so ubiquitous (and so seemingly charming) that people, sad not to be able to vote for him in the best actor race (where another unknown actor was trumping him in the hard-sell), channeled all their energy into this category where he shouldn’t have had a chance. It’s not that Sling Blade is a bad movie or anything – it’s respectable enough, though kind of ragged and decidedly minor. (Anecdotally, I knew a number of women who really loved it, and I wondered if Billy Bob’s character was wish fulfillment for them: a guy who protected them from swine suitors but was no threat to hit on them himself) The fact that it won against at least two excellent scripts has always struck me as a huge Oscar disappointment.

The Crucible isn’t a perfect match for what I said above, about play adaptation vis a vis Hamlet – it made at least some effort to open out the play, which required more than simply retyping the Samuel French script. But it 1) didn’t require terribly heavy lifting and 2) didn’t result in all that exciting a film. It did get Arthur Miller onto the Oscar rolls (his only time, unless I’m forgetting something), so it’s not a bad nomination, given alternatives. But I don’t see any need to vote for it.

By late summer 1996 I was close to falling out of love with movies. I don’t even remember why I was so down on the art form at that particular moment – maybe I saw how dismal the mainstream offerings were, and didn’t at that point have confidence indies could so full fill the gap. (It’s a subject for another, fuller time, but I’d watched critics tout indies since the early 80s, and had found most of them far less than promised) In any event, it was in that demoralized frame of mind that I sat down to watch Trainspotting…and, from the very opening moment – that rush of words spewing from Ewan MacGregor, matched to Boyle’s electric images – I felt my faith being restored. Trainspotting was so funny, so bracing, so fully alive, both in language and image, that for a while I thought it’d be my number one movie of the year. In the end, something beat it out, but the film remained my second-favorite, and its nomination here is extremely well-deserved.

What came along, of course, was The English Patient, my ultimate favorite of the year (and one of the best of the decade). Like most here, I’m baffled (and was at the time) that the Academy could turn its back on such an elegantly written piece, and act as if it was just another spectacle in the vein of Braveheart, giving it visual/directing prizes but spurning it for its screenplay. The English Patient is, of course, visually spectacular work, but its story, characters and dialogue are a complete match for its visuals. And, like Italiano, I especially commend it based on how it compares to its source novel. I only read Ondaatje’s work after I’d seen the film, and, if anything, my regard for Minghella’s achievement grew: what Ondaatje had written had an ephemeral quality that you’d think would have been impossible to transfer to the screen, even given major revisions. That Minghella was able to significantly strengthen the narrative spine without banalizing the material is extraordinary: he managed to create a film centered on two love stories that still maintained literary quality to put most contemporary films to shame. Honestly, I looked on Minghella’s writing win as the surest bet of the evening (well, along with Lauren Bacall – HA!). And I believe he must have, as well: speaking afterward, while he was careful to say how grateful he was for all the honor his film had been given (and offering praise for Billy Bob and Sling Blade), he said fashioning the script had been by far the most difficult work he’d done on the project, and it seemed strange to him to be prized for everything else before that.

Anyway, I do my bit to reverse this Academy error by casting my vote Minghella’s way (and potentially making him a two-time winner in the category).

The weakest of the originals was of course Shine. Sabin’s point is well-taken: the film was the one that scared me as a potential upset (especially since it had won NBR, which in those days was closer to AMPAS thinking than just about any other group), but it does seem pretty forgotten now. It was a fairly simplistic crowd-pleaser, even at the time, but I guess the unfamiliarity audiences had with both David Helfgott and this new actor playing him made it seem just exotic enough to make it a hit. Needless to say, I’m passing on it.

It’s a sign of how down everyone was on Hollywood overall that year that I even heard a few people complain Jerry Maguire seemed synthetic to them. I didn’t see that at all: to me it was a strong American comedy in the best tradition – not hugely profound, but perceptive in small ways within its comic/romantic framework. There are probably some years (like, say, 2003) when I’d have even voted for it. But not this year.

Mike Leigh is so much with us now that it’s hard to remember there was a time when he made bitter-ish, critic-adored but audience-shunned movies – Life is Sweet and Naked, released in years prior to Secrets and Lies, made little mainstream impact. Secrets and Lies was definitely a step toward accessibility: a very well-worked out, insightful film that mixed the comic with the sad delicately and successfully. There was definitely the question “Is this really WRITTEN?” being thrown around, which may have hurt it. Or it may be that people just liked something else better. As I did.

I’ve gone over Fargo too many times here on this board to want to fully recount it again, but, to briefly recap: I loved everything in the film to do with Frances McDormand…but the rest of the film just didn’t reach me the way it clearly does so many people. I’ve adored Coen Brothers’ movies prior (Miller’s Crossing) and subsequent (No Country, A Serious Man, Inside Llewyn Davis), but this one just didn’t ring my chimes. So, it’s not getting my vote.

My vote goes to Lone Star, which I think is the most ambitiously conceived film in the category, and one of the most successfully achieved films of John Sayles’ long career. The film works on a vast canvas, and manages to nearly perfectly corral all its elements into a cohesive whole (the one exception: Joe Morton’s plot-line, which, though it fits thematically in the father & sons motif, remains stubbornly apart from the main plot-line. I can’t believe it didn’t occur to Sayles to have the deadbeat father’s desertion of his family be related to the event in the flashback; it would have tied everything together immaculately). Sayles has a great deal to say, about not just families and legacies, but about local traditions and life near the border; I honestly think this is one of the three or four best, most resonant movies of the year. Given that in 1996, as I’ve said, the indies launched a full-scale invasion of the Oscars, it struck me as sad that long-time indie poster boy Sayles couldn’t get more than this one nomination out of it. I think his studio was too timid – playing by the old “if we’re lucky, the writers’ll nominate us” rules. If he’d had Harvey behind him, he might have got a directing nomination for this, his finest film. Anyway, I do my belated bit for him by choosing him in this category.
Last edited by Mister Tee on Wed Sep 17, 2014 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

Return to “The Damien Bona Memorial Oscar History Thread”