Best Screenplay 1979

[Heksagon]

I can only vote in the Original category, and it's an easy choice with Manhattan, one of the best films of the decade and also Woody Allen's most complete film, IMHO.

The rest of the nominees are rather mediocre. Breaking Away was a decent coming-of-age film at a time when there few such film done in America, and I guess it's the reason why it won here at the time. But after a ton of such films (and comic books) in the 80s and 90s, well, Breaking Away just feels lame and poorly aged. In particular, the shallow characters and the dull dialogue stand out too much.

The China Syndrome is hopelessly slow compared to modern suspense-films, but it has aged surprisingly well in some other respects. The story itself and the build-up for the climatic finale still work pretty well for me. It would be my runner-up choice here.

And Justice for All has some good individual scenes, but also many silly ones, the story is unremarkable and the film didn't really work as a whole for me. And Bob Fosse's immature egoistical fantasy All That Jazz should not be anywhere this category.

[The Original BJ]

In the Original race, I would also throw out The Marriage of Maria Braun as a good alternate -- I'd literally never heard of Fassbinder before film school, and when I was introduced to him first through this movie, I thought, who IS this guy?! A singular voice, and this was his finest hour.

Most of the actual nominees here are pretty good, though, with the exception of ...And Justice for All. I can't say I loathed it as much as some of you guys, but it was clearly unworthy of citation -- it's a really lumpy movie, a collision course of subplots and scenes with little concern for tone. There are moments when the movie seems to want to be a hard-hitting indictment of the system, and others where it seems to careen into farce, and everything in between. By the time we got to Pacino's big courtroom outburst ("My client...should go RIGHT to fucking jail!") the script had pretty much gone off into preposterous land.

The other candidates are all very respectable choices. The China Syndrome is a good case study for how low mainstream thrillers have fallen in recent years. I find the movie pretty gripping throughout, but with a far more solid foundation than most similar films today -- it deals with real-life issues in a grounded manner, features two well-drawn central characters (here's another pretty unique depiction of a relationship between a man and a woman that's not romantic), and is able to wrack one's nerves without ever devolving into pointless action. It's not so innovative that I'd vote for it -- there were a lot of similarly successful films of this type in the '70's -- but it was a very worthy effort.

Depending on how many categories we end up going through, we may be dealing with the All That Jazz face-off for years to come! (And now that I see flipp has joined Magilla on the dark side, I'm going to really have put up my defenses!) I think it's terrific, with a really honest depiction of backstage life in the theater that's full of grit and humor. Dialogue like "I just wish you weren't so generous with your cock," "What's the matter, don't you like musical comedy?" and my favorite exchange, "Fuck him! He never picks me!" / "Honey, I DID fuck him, and he never picks me either!" bristle with Fosse's hugely appealing sense of cynicism. All of that said, the truly memorable stuff in the movie -- like the thrilling "On Broadway" opening, or the terrifically touching "Everything Old is New Again" -- soars far more because of directing/choreography/editing than scripted strength.

On its own terms, Breaking Away is a perfectly good winner. I most like the way the script balances a whole bunch of different movies so effortlessly -- it's a very funny coming of age comedy, a touching family drama, a gripping sports adventure, a richly-detailed portrait of small-town life, even at times something more haunting (during all those scenes of the guys diving off the rocks, I wasn't entirely sure that nothing perilous would happen to one of them.) This is a crowd-pleaser through and through, but it's also a deeply genuine one, in which even the characters' triumphs carry with them the baggage of humility, and sometimes disappointment and regret. It's a very winning piece of writing.

But Manhattan is one of the great screenplays of the '70's, a sublime romantic comedy in which Woody Allen is so utterly mismatched for both Diane Keaton and Mariel Hemingway, and yet the movie is that much more perfect because of it. To say it's chock full of great dialogue would be an understatement, but lines like "You think you're God" / "I gotta model myself after someone" or "I've never had a relationship with a woman that's lasted longer than the one between Hitler and Eva Braun" are splendid examples of Woody Allen's skill at examining the despair of human existence and finding the hilarity and poignancy in it. And structurally, it's deceptively brilliant -- it's a pretty diffuse film, even compared to Allen's other work (even a film as similar as Annie Hall is far more focused narratively), and yet it never once feels like it ambles, with all of Allen's interactions with the other characters, whether major or minor, adding up to a fully cohesive whole. An easy choice -- no surprise to me that it's running away with our poll here.

[The Original BJ]

The omission of Being There is one of the most baffling exclusions in the Adapted category ever. You'd think it would be right up the writers' alley -- wonderfully inventive premise, lots of funny dialogue, humane insight. Its omission is even more bizarre when you look at the quality of some of the actual nominees.

I wouldn't have thought that La Cage aux Folles would have inspired the most debate, but to chime in... I wouldn't say I found the movie offensive -- dated, yes, but its heart was in the right place. My real problem, though, is the buffoonish level at which the humor was pitched -- there was barely any grace to the film's attempts at laughs, it all just felt so forced and leaden, with zero grounding in reality. I actually thought the Broadway musical improved in the latter area significantly, because it at least had songs that gave it some dramatic impact ("Song on the Sand," "The Best of Times," and above all, one of the great modern male showstoppers "I Am What I Am.") The movie, though, began over-the-top and just kept getting more ridiculous as it went on.

When A Little Romance began, I felt perfectly happy to view what seemed like it might be a teenage Before Sunrise (with the nationalities reversed.) But then -- and I mean no disrespect to the great actor -- Laurence Olivier showed up, as a silly character, and the movie essentially became a caper adventure, and I didn't think this sizable chunk of the script had much insight or weight to it. But even as a confection, it just wasn't that much fun either, mainly because so many of the plot points felt preposterous. Another nominee that doesn't make much sense to me.

I think the other three nominees were all deserving, with Norma Rae probably in the middle position. Structurally, Norma Rae is a pretty traditional social issue drama, but the script has a lot of nice details that keep the movie feeling honest. I like the way the title character is pretty foul-mouthed and badly behaved -- she does heroic things, but she's not glamorized. The movie is pro-union, but it doesn't portray Norma Rae's opposition in any kind of strident manner, or unnecessarily vilify them. And the portrait of the small-town North Carolina community feels authentic and lived-in, and treated without condescension. Perhaps not bracing enough for my vote, but I wouldn't begrudge anyone who chose it.

I think it's fitting that Italiano compared Apocalypse Now to Malick's work, because I come down on both in about the same way in award terms. I've voted for Malick in Picture & Director (both times, actually), but passed on him in this category, and I'm going to do the same with Apocalypse Now. This is not to dismiss the screenplay in any way, which I think is very impressive -- the voice-over is haunting and evocatively written, the set pieces juggle a peculiar mix of humor and horror, and from a plot standpoint, Coppola and Milius take the structure and characters from Heart of Darkness and transfer them to an entirely different time and place with great success. This is an adaptation that honors the original while working entirely as its own fresh cinematic entity. But...at the end of the day, like The Thin Red Line, I think its triumphs are more visual than verbal, and I'll toss a bone to another movie in this category.

Kramer vs. Kramer isn't an overwhelming choice for me -- it's not a wildly innovative or daring piece of writing. But it's a pretty beautifully realized character drama, that treats both Hoffman and Streep's characters with a great deal of humanity and respect, so it pains the viewer to take sides in their court case. Over the years, I've grown to really appreciate storytelling that allows both characters in a conflict to be acting in the right, and I think it's this level of even-handedness that makes the script such a nuanced affair. I also like the nicely detailed friendship between Hoffman and Alexander -- it's nice to see relationships between men and women in movies where they can just be friends -- as well as the welcome humor in Hoffman's scenes with little Justin Henry. Of the nominees, I find this the one that's most dependent on its script for its success, and it gets my vote.

[ITALIANO]

Reading you is an inspiration, Marco.

[CalWilliam]

One can find the houseboy in La Cage Aux Folles annoying, ridiculous or whatever, but it's still a stereotype (a harmless one in that context) and, in an admittedly minor-far-from-masterpiece-movie territory, we do have the ability and the intelligence to skew those certain aspects of a film that could "bother" us or make us think: "what a preposterous farce". I mean, La Cage Aux Folles (a.k.a. Vicios pequeños in Spanish: "Little Vices") is available, as soon as you have the mood or the intention to enjoy it, but if I want to AVOID or I can't stand that awful itch of feeling ashamed or offended, I just don't keep watching La Cage Aux Folles and take the Brideshead Revisited miniseries.

Reading you is an inspiration, Marco.

[ITALIANO]

Oh, and as for Stepin Fetchit - there are today, I guess, alternative ways to look at him and the character he played, too, but the point is - if a black person watches his prehistoric movies and still finds him offensive, it can only mean that society hasn't changed and this black person still feels discriminated against. So it says more about this black person and/or the social environment he or she lives in, rather than that ancient stereotype.

[ITALIANO]

[
Funny, I don't remember anyone dying in Boys in the Band.

Not physically, true - and, of course, I was referring to Cruising and other American movies of the same period. I honestly don't see how one can be offended by certain cliches and not others - except, I guess, that, to some, cliched happy homosexuals can be more offensive than cliched sad homosexuals, and this is VERY American, very puritanical, and, let me say it for once, more than a bit hypocritical. Philosopher Henri Bergson analyzed, as we all know, the therapeutical value of "laughs", and the psychoanalitical meaning of it - and I won't go into it but... how shall I put it... I mean, let's just say that, of course, we all have a homosexual side and the reaction to a movie like La Cage aux Folles - put, of course, in its historical context - says alot about how in touch we are with this side. Which, of course, doesn't necessarily make a movie great or even good. But yes, I'd say that I have a European attitude to all this. I am more relaxed. I can afford to be.

Oh, and there ARE gays like the houseboy!

I imagine there are a few black men who walk like Stepin Fetchit, too; would one be considered funny on-screen?

You know, it's adorable how, after all these years. you still seem to think invoking your European-ness grants you some moral high ground in a debate. I'd really have expected you to outgrow that by now. Agree to disagree; it's what adults do.

Moral high ground?! No... Just a different attitude. And there IS a difference between me and the Americans on this board, Mister Tee, one that can't disappear with time (thank God). And honestly you should kindly explain to me why you can mention my "provenance" as the reason for my choices, and I can't. Another American contradiction, maybe?

But don't worry, I wasn't implying anything in my post. Historical context is the key - we can be, I guess, more relaxed now about the cliched feminine gays in La Cage aux Folles, less tense, and maybe even look at them in a new way - unlike gays in American movies, they were comfortable with their lifestyle, and quite happy in their relationship. Oh, I know, Sasha Stone wouldn't approve - but I've learned that often we project our own inner fears in what we perceive as offensive in movies. And I, Mister Tee, have no fears of this kind.

[Mister Tee]

[
Funny, I don't remember anyone dying in Boys in the Band.

Not physically, true - and, of course, I was referring to Cruising and other American movies of the same period. I honestly don't see how one can be offended by certain cliches and not others - except, I guess, that, to some, cliched happy homosexuals can be more offensive than cliched sad homosexuals, and this is VERY American, very puritanical, and, let me say it for once, more than a bit hypocritical. Philosopher Henri Bergson analyzed, as we all know, the therapeutical value of "laughs", and the psychoanalitical meaning of it - and I won't go into it but... how shall I put it... I mean, let's just say that, of course, we all have a homosexual side and the reaction to a movie like La Cage aux Folles - put, of course, in its historical context - says alot about how in touch we are with this side. Which, of course, doesn't necessarily make a movie great or even good. But yes, I'd say that I have a European attitude to all this. I am more relaxed. I can afford to be.

Oh, and there ARE gays like the houseboy!

I imagine there are a few black men who walk like Stepin Fetchit, too; would one be considered funny on-screen?

You know, it's adorable how, after all these years. you still seem to think invoking your European-ness grants you some moral high ground in a debate. I'd really have expected you to outgrow that by now. Agree to disagree; it's what adults do.

[FilmFan720]

Wow, a rare year where I can almost vote in both categories. The only nominee I haven't seen is A Little Romance.

Most of what I have to say has been covered, but I wanted to chime in on some of the nominees:

I find Breaking Away dull, shallow and bland. Sorry.

Unlike some here, I am a big fan of the La Cage remakes. Perhaps it is my youth showing, and the fact that I saw them in reverse chronological order: the birdcage came out when I was in 8th grade, and my family and I found it hysterical; I discovered the musical soon after and loved it even more, finding it hysterical but also much more heart-felt than the birdcage had been. By the time I got around to the original (not long after), I found it much more plodding and less funny than the other versions I had seen. Maybe this isn't fair, but that is my backwards opinion!

I am perhaps the biggest Woody Allen apologist here, and lord knows I will vote for him too many times in these polls, but I have never found Manhattan as top-form Woody as most do. It is a wonderful film, and there is a lot I like in the film. But for whatever reason, I have never quite warmed to the film the way I have others. I find it a tad too long, a little too dry and the Woody/Diane relationship more distant than most of their combinations. It is a very solid film, but I find Annie Hall funnier, Hannah and Her Sisters warmer, Crimes and Misdemeanors more intellectually stimulating and The Purple Rose of Cairo more inviting. It is a solid nominee here, but I wouldn't let the film run away with this.

There are a lot of sharp, tight screenplays here: Kramer vs. Kramer, Norma Rae and The China Syndrome all do exactly what they need to, and are exemplars of their genres and types of film. They are smart and the kinds of scripts that should be taught in film school: how to construct a film perfectly

In the end, though, I would have to vote for the two grand experiments in filmmaking here. All That Jazz and Apocalypse Now are my two favorite films of the year, and even if their screenplays aren't as tight or finely tuned as other nominees, they are still really strong pieces of screenwriting. To say that these are director's triumphs may be true, but don't discredit what their directors did on the page before shooting: they are filled with memorable set pieces, they have really fascinating structure choices, they have some very memorable dialogue and when the films take the time to slow down to smaller, dialogue driven moments, they work just as well as the visuals. I love both of these movies, and perhaps I should spread the wealth to the tighter writing, but I'll give my votes their way!

[ITALIANO]

[
Funny, I don't remember anyone dying in Boys in the Band.

Not physically, true - and, of course, I was referring to Cruising and other American movies of the same period. I honestly don't see how one can be offended by certain cliches and not others - except, I guess, that, to some, cliched happy homosexuals can be more offensive than cliched sad homosexuals, and this is VERY American, very puritanical, and, let me say it for once, more than a bit hypocritical. Philosopher Henri Bergson analyzed, as we all know, the therapeutical value of "laughs", and the psychoanalitical meaning of it - and I won't go into it but... how shall I put it... I mean, let's just say that, of course, we all have a homosexual side and the reaction to a movie like La Cage aux Folles - put, of course, in its historical context - says alot about how in touch we are with this side. Which, of course, doesn't necessarily make a movie great or even good. But yes, I'd say that I have a European attitude to all this. I am more relaxed. I can afford to be.

Oh, and there ARE gays like the houseboy!

[Big Magilla]

According to Molinaro on the Criterion Bu-ray/DVD of La Cage aux Folles, Tognazzi was a problem. He didn't speak French very well and refused to learn his lines, speaking either in Italian or gibberish as if he were making a Fellini film and his entire performance had to be dubbed.

I don't really get the hate for the film, especially compared to the snaky Holllywood remake which I doubly didn't like because it meant there would probably never be a film version of Jerry Herman's brilliant musical. Poor Jerry. He gets a too young star with Hello, Dolly!, a too old star with Mame and nothing at all with La Cage.

The property is a farce. It's not supposed to be taken seriously. Nevertheless it has dated badly. The Boys in the Band was one of the best received plays of its day. It was right up there with Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and The Subject Was Roses in terms of intensity, but fell out of favor rather quickly. I don't remember anyone dying in it, although sadly most of the cast members died rather young, some, but not all from AIDS. Among those who died too soon were Kenneth Nelson, who had the lead, moved to England where he appeared in London plays and musicals; Cliff Gorman went on to Broadway's Lenny and Leonard Frey who received an Oscar nomination the following year for Fiddler on the Roof and Laurence Luckinbill, on the other hand, married Lucie Arnaz to whom he's still married. A Blu-ray upgrade will be releases in June or July.

I tried not to be too snarky to All That Jazz this time around. I thought I had beaten that dead horse to the ground already. I even gave a bit of shout out to the costumes even though I thought they were mostly hideous. I would have voted for Agatha in that category, but that's another story.

After observing that I was only one who didn't vote for Manhattan for Original Screenplay - it's now winning 16 to 1 - I thought I would sit down and watch it again with an open mind. Well, I'm still not convinced. I love the opening and the ending and the Gershwin score as much as anyone. I even like Woody's essentially playing himself here more than I usually do, but the screenplay is still an also-ran for me. It doesn't hold a candle to the brilliance of Breaking Away which I also re-watched recently.

[Mister Tee]

I’m quite surprised to see Italiano single out La Cage, though I guess national provenance is an excuse.

I am not French! I don't know which "better versions" of La Cage aux Folles you are talking about - I hope you aren't thinking of that remake with Robin Williams, Americanized and politically corrected and, by consequence, totally useless. Of course, the original is badly dated - but which movie on this subject from the 70s wouldn't be? Still - it's a joyous French farce, a genre that historically - and long before movies even started - dealt with social and sexual behaviours which most "honorable" people wouldn't talk about - making fun of those officialy "unorthodox" behaviours but also al the same time bringing them out, making them acceptable. It's much, much better, Mister Tee, than Boys in the Band with its tortured, unhappy homosexuals, and of course than Cruising or other American movies of the same period. In this sense yes, it's possible that proveance is a reason - we prefer our gays to survive. Even back then.

I was thinking of Ugo Tognazzi in the starring role (and, to tell you the truth, I was lulled into thinking Molinaro was an Italian name -- my mistake: he was born in France).

Funny, I don't remember anyone dying in Boys in the Band. I'm hardly going to the wall for Crowley's play, which has been truly overtaken by events (it couldn't have imagined the social strides we've seen in the five decades since). But in its day it was seen as genuine by most gay people I knew. It's wonderful that it's now a period piece.

I just don't see ANY value whatever in La Cage, which to me is buffoonishly unfunny and traffics in the broadest of gay stereotypes (I've HATED that houseboy in every single incarnation). If you think the very existence of the play/film had some significance, we'll simply have to agree to disagree. For me, it calls to mind Conan O'Brian's joke when Will and Grace swept the Emmys: "What a breakthrough: now we can all laugh at homosexuals"

per dws: I WAS thinking primarily of the Broadway musical, which was hardly to my taste, either, but at least it featured a sweet performance by George Hearn, who was part of the crowd at a theatre-district bar I used to hang out at, and who waited a long time for his success. But, while I won't say much in defense of The Birdcage -- truly, I just don't like this material in any form -- I will say it extracted a few laughs from me, which puts it steps ahead of this first version.

[ITALIANO]

I don't know which "better versions" of La Cage aux Folles you are talking about - I hope you aren't thinking of that remake with Robin Williams, Americanized and politically corrected and, by consequence, totally useless.

It was made into a Broadway musical in the mid-80's that's been a big crowd-pleaser ever since. It seems to have revivals or touring productions every couple of years.

Oh ok.

[dws1982]

I don't know which "better versions" of La Cage aux Folles you are talking about - I hope you aren't thinking of that remake with Robin Williams, Americanized and politically corrected and, by consequence, totally useless.

It was made into a Broadway musical in the mid-80's that's been a big crowd-pleaser ever since. It seems to have revivals or touring productions every couple of years.

[ITALIANO]

I’m quite surprised to see Italiano single out La Cage, though I guess national provenance is an excuse.

I am not French! I don't know which "better versions" of La Cage aux Folles you are talking about - I hope you aren't thinking of that remake with Robin Williams, Americanized and politically corrected and, by consequence, totally useless. Of course, the original is badly dated - but which movie on this subject from the 70s wouldn't be? Still - it's a joyous French farce, a genre that historically - and long before movies even started - dealt with social and sexual behaviours which most "honorable" people wouldn't talk about - making fun of those officialy "unorthodox" behaviours but also al the same time bringing them out, making them acceptable. It's much, much better, Mister Tee, than Boys in the Band with its tortured, unhappy homosexuals, and of course than Cruising or other American movies of the same period. In this sense yes, it's possible that proveance is a reason - we prefer our gays to survive. Even back then.