Best Screenplay 1993

1927/28 through 1997

What were the best original and adapted screenplays of 1993?

Dave (Gary Ross)
2
4%
In the Line of Fire (Jeff Maguire)
4
9%
Philadelphia (Ron Nyswaner)
0
No votes
The Piano (Jane Campion)
13
28%
Sleepless in Seattle (Nora Ephron, David S. Ward, Jeff Arch)
4
9%
The Age of Innocence (Jay Cocks, Martin Scorsese)
2
4%
In the Name of the Father (Terry George, Jim Sheridan)
0
No votes
The Remains of the Day (Ruther Prawer Jhabvala)
8
17%
Schindler's List (Steven Zallian)
13
28%
Shadowlands (William Nicholson)
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 46

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Best Screenplay 1993

Post by The Original BJ »

Had Short Cuts been an option under Adapted, I'd have voted for it outright. Given the number of lesser scripts with interlocking stories (even ones set in LA!) that have received Academy attention, it's really strange this superlative example missed with the writers. I would also rate King of the Hill and Like Water for Chocolate very highly.

Shadowlands has some admirable aspects -- I like the way C.S. Lewis's religion is treated with respect, and not viewed as something to be "solved" through his ordeal with Winger's character. But the pacing is a little lugubrious, and though the movie is touching, I don't think there's all that much singularity to the writing.

In some ways, In the Name of the Father stands out among this lineup simply for being the only film here that isn't a costume drama -- as a result, it's easier to admire the movie's grit and contemporary political sensibilities. In fact, this is probably the boldest film of Jim Sheridan's career -- sure, the ending is triumphant, but there's a lot of violence and spitfire anger along the way. Of course, Sheridan isn't what you'd call a hugely inventive filmmaker, and even here, at his edgiest, his narrative structure still fits into a fairly traditional form. This is probably his strongest overall achievement, but it isn't overwhelming enough an accomplishment to get my vote.

I have to say I'm quite surprised The Remains of the Day has performed so solidly in our voting here. Which isn't to suggest that I lean negative on the movie, because I like it a lot. As with many of Ruth Prawer Jhabvala's literary adaptations, there's a delicate sensitivity and depth of feeling that permeates the movie, and she has a real knack for using dialogue that conveys just enough of what her characters are thinking on the inside, without being able to say those things outright. (The last scene between Hopkins and Thompson is pretty much a master class in this department, and a heartbreakingly beautiful series of dialogue exchanges between the two characters). But I think her other two nominations are stronger candidates, and in terms of literary costume flicks...

...I think The Age of Innocence is superior in nearly every respect. This is a superb adaptation of Wharton's novel, one of the best examples of a truly great book becoming a great movie. And a lot of this has to do with the stamp that Scorsese -- as director, but also co-writer -- puts on the material. On screen, Wharton's novel of manners has the energy and bite of one of Scorsese's great crime flicks -- a lot less blood gets shed, but the characters are no less cruel to one another in every other department, and I love the way the piercing insight and crisp pacing of the writing allows the movie to feel like an epic mob drama by way of costume piece rather than embalmed literature. I also think this script contains one of the best uses of voice-over in film -- instead of feeling like lazy literary transposition, it provides a disembodied sense of detached irony that brings out the satire of Wharton's book. This would have been a very deserving winner, and if something had to be the runner-up to Schindler's List, I would have expected it to be this.

But Schindler's List is a towering achievement in nearly every respect, and I've voted for Zaillian here. Yes, the movie gets a ton of its emotional impact from Spielberg and Kaminski's visuals, but I think the complexity of the characters as shaded by the script elevates the movie even further into greatness. Oskar Schindler doesn't start out as a hero, and his journey from war profiteer to savior is conveyed in a manner that feels realistically thorny, and never simplistic. And Amon Goeth, while truly a horrible individual, is nonetheless scripted with a level of wit, charm, and humanity that makes his actions even more frightening for stemming from such an honestly crafted human being, rather than a reductively-drawn monster. Many of us complain around here that a lot of historical dramas, throughout film history, have been crafted in a manner that privileges size and visual spectacle over intelligent writing. I would offer up Schindler's List as a time when this was absolutely not the case -- here, the richness of the characters and the strength of the narrative were a crucial part of what made the film such an overwhelming experience, and I salute the writer's contribution to such a major film achievement.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Best Screenplay 1993

Post by The Original BJ »

Viewed in hindsight, it's pretty astounding Groundhog Day wasn't one of the five Original Screenplay nominees. This isn't because it was SO brilliant -- though it's absolutely an imaginative and very funny piece of writing, and merited inclusion -- but more because it's viewed by the mainstream Hollywood crowd as one of the top scripts of its era (in a WGA/AFI list sort of way). If the Academy voted today, there's no way it would miss the slate. Other worthy options would be Dazed and Confused and A Perfect World (and I agree with FilmFan...how did the same Hancock who crafted this become so utterly vanilla?)

Dave is amiable enough in a Capra-esque way, but it's way out of its weight class here. The set-up is outlandish enough you'd expect a more surprising plot line to follow, but there just isn't much invention along the way, and I'm with Mister Tee -- it's just not all that funny. A completely disposable nominee.

Philadelphia's heart is in the right place, and perhaps if I had seen the movie in 1993, I'd have thought that. But by the time I got to it, it just seemed so quaint, the kind of movie that's constantly patting itself on the back for its impulses, while not going that far out of its way to criticize the prejudiced attitudes of Washington's character, and by extension, those audience members who hold them. And it's so lacking in subtlety -- the "Do I look gay to you?" scene especially just lands like a sledgehammer of obviousness. The effort was noble, but I don't give votes for effort.

Sleepless in Seattle is definitely lightweight stuff, but as an example of its genre, it's still pretty winning. More than many contemporary romantic comedies, this seems to capture the fizziness of the genre at its height, in the '30's and '40's, and it does it with a neat spin, taking one of the most crucial elements of rom com (romantic chemistry!) and subverting it. I credit the warmth of the writing, and the engaging events of the plot, for making the film feel so buoyant, despite the fact that Hanks and Ryan barely share a scene together. This doesn't make the screenplay award-level -- certainly the movie exists more as entertainment than art -- but I'd rather there be a lot more of these than most of what passes for the genre today.

In the Line of Fire is another good effort in a genre that's fallen mightily, the suspense thriller for grown-ups. I agree that the scene Mister Tee cites -- Malkovich sticking the gun in his own mouth -- is far more dramatically and psychologically compelling than a lot of the facetious snark that pops up in most of what passes for this genre today. I didn't think the movie so wildly ignored genre conventions as to be any great innovation -- the final chase sequence, though well mounted, is the kind of thing that has appeared in a lot of Wolfgang Peterson efforts. But the script had moments that were more special along the way, mostly involving the psychological tete a tete between Eastwood and Malkovich's well-realized characters, and it also had a gravity to it that made it feel like it amounted to much more than an exercise in action.

But I go pretty easily for Jane Campion, for her beautiful and evocative script for The Piano. This is a movie that excels in a lot of areas -- visually, musically, performance-wise -- but its script is the thematically rich and deeply thoughtful foundation that allows all of Campion’s collaborators to soar so high. At its heart, the movie is about communication, and the ways in which people choose to connect with or cut themselves off from others, particularly when they have the tendency to put their own selfish desires first, without thinking about how the consequences of their words and actions might affect anyone else. I think Campion puts forth these ideas with a story that's entrancing and full of deep wells of emotion. The script has the literate quality of great fiction, with its richly layered characters and striking symbolism, but contains a gripping narrative so reliant upon its images it’s hard to imagine it as anything other than a film. In a field without much competition, The Piano gets my vote in a walk.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Best Screenplay 1993

Post by Mister Tee »

PART 3; READ FROM BELOW. THIS 403 THING MAKES YOU WANT TO TEAR YOUR HAIR OUT

I presumed The Piano would run away with things here, but it’ll have to do it without my help. The Piano is clearly a better film than Philadelphia, but I’m not sure I’d say its script is any better. For me, The Piano is a triumph of visuals and acting over a storyline that seems comprised of bits and pieces from movies I’ve already seen – and the tight-assed parson vis a vis the “close to the earth” natives was a wheeze back in the hippie era. It wasn’t until the last half hour that the story went anywhere new or interesting, and by then it was too late for me. This is an effort whose reputation I’ll never understand.

My ultimate vote, for In the Line of Fire, is primarily process of elimination, but that’s not to suggest I can’t defend the film. In fact, I think it’s a pretty terrific, under-appreciated suspenser, with two wonderful characters at its center. Eastwood’s Secret Service agent is visibly haunted by his failure in Dallas, and his desire for redemption drives him throughout this present-day story. Malkovich’s assassin character picks up on this, to the point it becomes part of his mission: he wants to kill the president, but he also wants to screw with Eastwood’s head in the process; it’s all part of the perverse pleasure he’s seeking. From this starting point, the film goes more interesting directions than most films of its kind, and reaches some kind of culmination in that startling rooftop scene -- where Eastwood is dangling, held aloft only by Malkovich, and Malkovich puts Eastwood’s gun barrel in his mouth. It’s Malkovich offering Eastwood a chance to fulfill his literal SS mission (give his life to save the president), but with, crucially, no assurance anyone would ever know he’d done it – and Eastwood declines the opportunity. This is pretty gut-wrenching stuff for a suspense thriller, and it made me think a bit of Hitchcock efforts like Strangers on a Train. Some branches of the Academy went for it (writers, actors, even editors), but, for reasons I’ve never understood, the membership as a whole judged The Fugitive (a perfectly enjoyable but far more trivial thriller) the finer film. I do my small bit to correct that injustice by voting for the film here.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Best Screenplay 1993

Post by Mister Tee »

AARGH!!! -- 403 STRIKES AGAIN. THIS IS PART 2, MEANT TO FOLLOW THE POST BELOW

I can’t go so far as Heksagon as to call Dave the worst nominated screenplay of the 90s (Braveheart, The Green Mile and The Cider House Rules have something to say about that,)but I did find the film pretty much a complete shrug-off. What others (apparently) found hilarious, I found mildly amusing at most; compared to other comedies nominated in the era (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Jerry Maguire), not to mention Groundhog Day, its laugh quotient was pretty weak. There’s no way I’d have cited it.

Philadelphia was viewed even at the time as a milquetoast effort – Longtime Companion and Parting Glances had already delved further into the AIDS crisis, and Italiano is correct that the film made Tom Hanks’ character so goodly it felt Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner-y (when he testified he’d been to the gay porno house only once or twice, every gay person I knew just about howled with laughter). But those earlier films had been low-grossing indies; this was a major studio release, and, what do you know? – the Hanks presence and the sanitized edges made the film an unexpectedly big box-office hit. So, Hollywood rewarded it with a batch of nominations (though leaving it off the best picture list suggested even they knew it wasn’t the real deal). There are actually moments in the film that work, and Demme directs very well throughout, but the script is the film’s main drawback, so it won’t be getting my vote.

Here I thought I’d have to out myself as the one sap who kind of liked Sleepless in Seattle; I’m gratified to see the film is less unpopular than I’d expected (though I’m surprised some have gone so far as to vote for it). The film created some of its own negative reputation: by introducing the term “chick flick” into common usage, it opened the door for many to simply dismiss it as such. But I’ve always felt the film was too knowing about its genre to be reduced to simply an example of it. It’s a movie that, yes, in the end gives its audience the deliriously happy romantic ending, but it does it with a great amount of wit along the way, and with something of a tweak to its audience: half-laughing at them for their active desire that the film end just that way. The romantic comedy has fallen on very hard times of late; given the absence of many decent examples in recent decades, I’m more inclined to appreciate this solid achievement from two decades back.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Best Screenplay 1993

Post by Mister Tee »

I’ve waited so long that others have mentioned my preferred alternates. Under adaptation, I’d have put Six Degrees of Separation, Short Cuts and Fearless. For original, Groundhog Day is the clear, glaring omission, especially given the lesser comedies that WERE cited. And I’d echo FilmFan’s mention of A Perfect World.

None of the adapted nominees is without merit, though Shadowlands is a bit too prestige/Masterpiece Theatre-y for my taste – a dying girlfriend movie dressed up with a Famous Writer. I haven’t given it a moment’s thought in the 20 years since I saw it.

I haven’t read Remains of the Day, though I know many who swear by the book (and I’ve greatly enjoyed other Ishiguro books). I can only say that Remains of the Day disappointed me greatly, give the raves it got (and continues to get). It just seemed extremely simplistic to me: after about half an hour, it was clear Anthony Hopkins was never going to respond to anything, however provoked, and this seemed the filmmaker’s analogy for the British passivity that almost let Hitler triumph. The dialogue is respectable enough, and I found the final meeting in Brighton sweet, but the story as a whole just struck me as too flat – almost as if Hopkins’ character had done the writing.

In the Name of the Father is another of those films that can get you angry if you look into the actual facts – the lawyer didn’t find the exculpatory evidence in anything like the way Thompson does, and, oh yeah: father and son never shared a jail cell. But I can forgive the film because it created wrenching drama within its fictions: the idea of a father/son who can’t stand one another being forced to share a jail cell is so compelling it overrides the problems of factuality. I’ve blown hot and cold on Jim Sheridan’s work, but this is one of his winners.

Schindler’s List is a great film, and, though much of its greatness flows from Spielberg’s directorial mastery, more credit should be given to Zaillian’s mounting of Kenneally’s book. I’d read the book a decade earlier, and imagined it a solid film…but the scope the script/film managed easily surpassed anything I’d envisioned. And the writing of the character of Amon Goeth is quite superb – probably the strongest human character in any Spielberg film (with the possible exception of Lincoln). The film won screenplay as part of its best picture sweep, but the screenplay was plenty deserving on its own.

I haven’t voted for it, however, because I’m among the group that adores The Age of Innocence – in fact thought it the year’s second-best film, not far behind Schindler. It may be the only costume drama I’ve ever seen where the pained romance read fully as heterosexual lust—Day-Lewis’s aching for Pfeiffer is palpable; we can see how much more thrilling it is for him than the domesticated love Ryder’s character offers. The machinations by which he’s ultimately denied satisfaction seem horribly cruel…yet, when we see him in the epilogue, we get a sense that maybe his life worked out just as well without the great romance. Scorsese filmed this all with vigor – used as I was to Merchant/Ivory half-heartedness, I found it a miracle for a film in this genre to be filled with such zest – but the script (including the wonderful narration) rates a good deal of the credit, for the film’s literate passion. Mine is a lonely vote so far, but I cast it for one of Scorsese’s great films.
Heksagon
Adjunct
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:39 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Best Screenplay 1993

Post by Heksagon »

Dave really disappointed me and I’m a bit surprised that there are now people saying it’s not that terrible. Admittedly, I have forgotten almost everything about the film, except for the dumb plot and the sense of frustration at seeing it, and I’m planning to forget those as well.

I do feel that Dave is, for me, a strong candidate as the worst nominated screenplay of the 90s - but I must admit also that I’m missing quite a lot of films from this decade: a total of six between 1990-92. Besides Dave, the only other writing-nominated film that I felt was in the same league is the pointless The Mighty Aphrodite. But honestly, I’d have to re-watch those to determine which I dislike more, and maybe give Bullets over Broadway another shot as well.

Generally speaking, I feel that the quality of screenplay nominees in the 90s was pretty good, as there are way more films I’d classify as bad if I go through the list of nominees from the 2000s.
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Best Screenplay 1993

Post by FilmFan720 »

I'll start backwards for a change. I couldn't vote in Adapted because I haven't seen Shadowlands (and didn't want ITALIANO getting too angry at me) but I could endorse a nomination for any of the other four: In the Name of the Father does the recent events trial genre more intelligently than most any other film before or sense, The Remains of the Day and The Age of Innocence are two highly literate adaptations of important literature and Schindler's List is a large epic that is also intelligently and tightly written. I would probably lean Schindler's List for a vote, but this is a great category.

My real choice, though, would be an adaptation I'm shocked no one here has mentioned: Robert Altman's Short Cuts. The way that Altman takes a collection of brilliant short stories, finds a way to seamlessly weave them together without ever losing the pieces that make them so memorable, is remarkable. This is also a great year for adapted screenplays: throw in the charming What's Eating Gilbert Grape? and John Guare's cinematic yet faithful Six Degrees of Separation and I see an embarassment of riches I can't winnow down to 5 screenplays.

In Original, the line-up may not seem as legendary but it is solid nonetheless. Dave and Sleepless in Seattle represent two smart Hollywood comedies with something to say (don't you wish we had those again), although nominating them and not Groundhog Day seems a little foolish in hindsight. In the Line of Fire is about as smart as a Hollywood action thriller gets (don't you wish we had those again too), and so I'm happy to see it here even if I can't vote for it.

Philadelphia has some flaws in its treatment of its subject, but it also has some tightly wound scenes. I think Demme and company make the screenplay seem more intelligent than it really is, and today it may seem a little naive, but is it any more so than some of the earlier Hollywood films that dealt with race? I won't vote for it here, but I won't begrudge the nomination the way others have.

I will vote for The Piano, for the same reasons others have. It's a way to honor Campion's achievement and it is a lovely piece of writing.

In addition to Groundhog Day, I'll also throw out A Perfect World (how can this be the same John Lee Hancock who went on to make The Blindside?) and Manhattan Murder Mystery (one of Woody's funniest films, and sadly overlooked).
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: Best Screenplay 1993

Post by ITALIANO »

Dave may not be the worst Oscar-nominated script of the 90s (and I'm not even sure that it's the worst nominated in its year), but really, it's a movie of such a banality..! One of those so-called comedies which are built on just one idea, and not even a very original one. But for some reason it was a big box-office hit. Which is also true of Philadelphia and Sleepless in Seattle. Philadelphia is probably the best example not only of a certain kind of American movie, but also more generally of America's attitude to certain themes - homosexuality, in this case, and AIDS. The total lack of subtext, the ultra-cautious way of dealing with gay characters... I mean, it's almost grotesque, let's face it, so hypocritical (the saintly lovable gay guy gets infected the only time he has promiscuous sex - or almost) . Why don't Americans finally accept their homosexual side? It's not so complicated after all... And, I mean, I've met them - talk about bisexuality! Well, I'll never know I guess. Sleepless in Seattle is a coldly executed "romantic comedy" - not very romantic and not much of a comedy. It tries so desperately to be "charming" - it's just flat. I have almost completely forgotten it, except for a dreadful scene with two couples discussing movies - women cry watching soap operas, men cry watching war films... Yeah, sure. Very funny. In this depressing context, In the Line of Fire is at least a good example of its kind - absorbing, believable, even surprising at times. But The Piano certainly is a better movie, and a more artistic one - its script may not be its most interesting aspect, but it's still a good script, deeply-felt, intelligent but also very emotional. My pick, of course.

It's more difficult in Adapted because, with the exception of Shadowlands, the nominees are all of a very good level. It's difficult to choose one, really - even In The Name of the Father, for example, is a respectable example of adapting (and yes, I know - changing, even, but I don't think that's necessarily a crime) a true event to the screen. It has its power. Schindler's List would probably be my pick as Best Picture, and it's also a very well-written movie - the character of the Nazi officer alone shows a true writing talent, and an undeniable sublety. But for Screenplay, I've gone with The Remains of the Day. I read the novel centuries ago, but if I remember correctly, it's written in the first person. If this is true, the way the screenplay "objectifies" the story, still preserving the point of view of the butler, is I think a masterful example of writing for the screen. And of course the movie becomes so emotionally affecting, yet never grossly so - never a big dramatic "climax", just a succession of expertly conceived, and more and more involving, intimate scenes. Its coldness is only on the surface. Very good script, really.
FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3650
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Best Screenplay 1993

Post by FilmFan720 »

Big Magilla wrote:
Sabin wrote:Dave is the worst screenplay nominee of the 90s? I dunno. I think its an all right movie.
Hmmm. "All right" or "alright"?
"All right" means they got everything right. "Alright" means it was merely OK. I'd say it was "Alright."
Maybe it's a companion piece to next year's conservative favorite "Forrest Gump"!
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Screenplay 1993

Post by Sabin »

Wow, I was not awake yet. It's alright. I haven't seen it in probably twenty years now, but it might have gotten everything right.
"How's the despair?"
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19317
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Best Screenplay 1993

Post by Big Magilla »

Sabin wrote:Dave is the worst screenplay nominee of the 90s? I dunno. I think its an all right movie.
Hmmm. "All right" or "alright"?
"All right" means they got everything right. "Alright" means it was merely OK. I'd say it was "Alright."
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Best Screenplay 1993

Post by Sabin »

Dave is the worst screenplay nominee of the 90s? I dunno. I think its an all right movie.
"How's the despair?"
Heksagon
Adjunct
Posts: 1229
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:39 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Best Screenplay 1993

Post by Heksagon »

Overall, it’s a good year in these categories.

The Adapted category is the stronger one this year, and The Age of Innocence and Shadowlands are both respectable nominees, although I’m not a huge admirer of the former one (the way I have noticed some people praise it). My vote goes to Schindler’s List, even if I felt that the film is more of a directing achievement than a screenwriting one.

In the Original category, The Piano is miles ahead of the rest and easily gets my vote. In the Line of Fire, Philadelphia and Sleepless in Seattle are all solid films, although I’m not personally that enthusiastic about any of them. In the Line of Fire has a lot of weak scenes which feel like padding the screenplay. And Philadelphia actually has a pretty bland screenplay, only brought to life by good direction and excellent acting.

But what really threatens to ruin this year for me is Dave, which is perhaps the worst screenplay nominee of the whole decade. It would not otherwise bother me that Groundhog Day was passed over, because it’s not the type of film the Academy likes, and I don’t really expect them to nominate films outside their comfort zone. But how the hell did it lose out to Dave?
Greg
Tenured
Posts: 3285
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:12 pm
Location: Greg
Contact:

Re: Best Screenplay 1993

Post by Greg »

How can anyone vote for The Piano's screenplay? Ada had no dialogue. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
mlrg
Associate
Posts: 1747
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Best Screenplay 1993

Post by mlrg »

Voted for The Piano and Schindler's List.

I've never read the book but as far as I recall, I remember at the time reading film criticts saying that, altough a very solid film, The Remains of the Day weakest link was the screenplay. The book was far superior than the film. Strangely, it's tied with Schindler's List on this poll at the moment.
Post Reply

Return to “The Damien Bona Memorial Oscar History Thread”