Worst Best Original Screenplay Winner

Worst Best Original Screenplay Winner

Mark Boal, The Hurt Locker
1
3%
Dustin Lance Black, Milk
0
No votes
Diablo Cody, Juno
7
18%
Michael Arndt, Little Miss Sunshine
11
28%
Paul Haggis & Bobby Moresco, Crash
16
41%
Pierre Bismith, Michel Gondry & Charlie Kaufman (story); Charlie Kaufman (screenplay), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
3
8%
Sofia Coppola, Lost in Translation
1
3%
Pedro Almodovar, Talk to Her
0
No votes
Julian Fellowes, Gosford Park
0
No votes
Cameron Crowe, Almost Famous
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 39

Jim20
Temp
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2003 7:54 pm
Location: Pasadena, CA
Contact:

Post by Jim20 »

I voted Juno. To this day, that movie (save Jennifer Garner's performance) pisses me off.
Hustler
Tenured
Posts: 2914
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:35 pm
Location: Buenos Aires-Argentina

Post by Hustler »

Crash, in my opinion.
HarryGoldfarb
Adjunct
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
Location: Colombia
Contact:

Post by HarryGoldfarb »

I voted for Juno because I never got a justification for the script. I found the script to have no force, it wasn't any fun (as it meant to be) and ultimately iwas plain gray. It did not take me anywhere, all the way through it felt flat as few and so far I did not understand the love and admiration aroused by this film. The only time the film was somehow "vivid", the scene that I really liked was the one in the mall with Jennifer Garner, and even there, the credit should go the actresses involved. In conclusion, when I remember the film, specially its "smart" screenplay, a nicely written chapter of a poor/bad television series aimed at teenagers and that I had no interest in comes to mind.

"Crash" undoubtedly represents the pinnacle of all the Academy can do wrong. But months before the nominations, after seeing the movie, I remember my own expectation about the film possibilities: I was hoping that "this little quasi-independent film" could survive the following months and be remembered by voters at the end of the year and thus occupy a place among the nominees for best original screenplay . Cause yes, it is full of cliches, some untenable, but as someone said, it is easy to understand that the general public liked it. It was like “Altman for the stupid” or to be less offensive, for the uneducated one. Incongruous, flamboyant, unlikely, and so grotesque playing with archetypes, at least it was aware of his intention to "surprise" and at writing it, Haggis did it without any shame. In the end it was overestimated? Yes, of course… but it still would have been nice to see it as an Oscar nominee (an at least understandable one) with an interesting chance of winning the award instead of the thing it eventually became. And precisely, because of the Academy own mistake, Crash is more hated than it should be, even by me.

Someone divided "Little Miss Sunshine" into three acts. In my case, I also bought the entire first, I had a raised eyebrow during the second one and definitely hated the third. Without a doubt I would have voted for "El Laberinto del Fauno" and its lose is what bothers me the most about the "LMS" win, but it is not as I can say I did not enjoy it (hey, it does not mean I understand why this film is so loved too).

And finally I humblely step into the "does everything Kaufman do exists to demonstrate how "clever Charlie Kaufman is or not" issue.

Everyone who enters the world of creation (as Soderbergh said in his acceptance speech, whether it is writing, painting, etc..) has the need to translate an idea into a material manifestation. In the case of the arts, it tends to sublimate or portray (through particular lens) reality while in the case of commercial creations it can simply generate a tangible product in the hope of fulfilling its mission. But in any case, the creative process implies the personal burden of the operator and every author has to deal with a matter that in Spanish we call “personal-importance”, a kind of self-consciousness and a fear to be considered good at something. All work allows us to draw the features of its creator (and here I remember Borges and his wonderful "Ruinas Circulares"), whether they are their skills, weaknesses or strengths. Does Kaufman's works are to show how smart he is, or simply the manifestations of his mental concerns? It is difficult to answer because in a subjective way we do not know if the work has used the author (in order “to be”) or on the contrary, the author really brought to life the final product, leaving a substantial burden of himself on it. I especially like the restless minds, those seeking the particularities and excel at execution. Are some approaches “over-done”? Perhaps they are, but sometimes no less effective because of that. We could bring up other scripts (or works in other fields for that matter) and say they also "pretended too much" ("Memento" comes to mind) but that would be like the phrase "too many notes", the famous Emperor Joseph II's complaint about Mozart in Amadeus. The criticisms are perfectly valid, and anyone can like or dislike a piece of creation (let’s leave art alone) according to their own taste and that’s why I think Wesley did not intend to reject this discussion with his argument. Actually I do think that all boils down to the fact that the value of a work depends very much on the characteristics of the viewer, and the effects it produces on audiences are not exclusive (nor indicative by that means) of the author’s skills. That is why not all people is equally impressed by the Mona Lisa. The initial approach to me seems so irrelevant as to discuss whether "all Spielberg movies exist to prove how effective from a business perspective he is” or that “all Almodóvar films exist to prove how incisive can he be”, etc… Most likely every film exist "just because" their directors (or makers in any case) were clever or smart "enough" to make them, with all the limitations the phrase implies. So a film by an X director, being a reflection of his own intentions, exist to prove he did it, and in the process to validate how smart, stupid, superior, close-minded, basic, arrogant, flamboyant, etc, they guy is! Maybe every director’s films exist to prove they were made by them and in the end they allow us to infer the psyche of their makers. And in the process our own…
"If you place an object in a museum, does that make this object a piece of art?" - The Square (2017)
HarryGoldfarb
Adjunct
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:50 pm
Location: Colombia
Contact:

Post by HarryGoldfarb »

Voted for Juno, with no hesitation. I'm terribly busy right now... I'll chime in later to discuss...
"If you place an object in a museum, does that make this object a piece of art?" - The Square (2017)
User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2749
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Post by Eric »

I weep that Little Miss Sunshine (a total mediocrity but one with at least a few nice observational details early on) is cutting into what should be a triple-digit lead by Crash.



Edited By Eric on 1270003355
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

Not everyone likes Kubrick or Dali or Kaufman or any other artist with a singular style. There will be segments of the population that consider each masters of form, and others that think their work is utter crap. It's going to happen. We shouldn't be at all surprised.

I forget who to attribute this quote to but someone once said "You can only argue with those whom you basically agree with." The right for gays to marry vs. homosexuals are the product of the devil = an argument that goes nowhere. I think Moulin Rouge! produced a radical schism of Pro vs. Con this decade. Because all of us on this Board share a common language that we can mutually decipher, I see no reason why we have to necessarily leave such an argument at that.

Additionally, I'd like to think that ragging on a product because of a broad base of popularity is hopefully something we'd be above. I saw Damien give a rave review to Twilight: New Moon which I made a derisive comment about eliciting his condemnation of all goddamn cartoons. But I haven't seen Twilight nor do I plan on it. See also discussions of the relative (de)merits of Harry Potter, etc. The basis for my argument specific to this thread is the charge that Eternal Sunshine... is about its own cleverness, which is something I don't agree with and cannot understand. I've never gotten an adequate argument saying as much outside of (I believe) Magilla citing Eternal Sunshine... as a young person's film with only two substantial characters and the film entirely about their self-involved woes, to which I maintain this isn't much of a criticism so much as an observation. Young people with self-involved woes can be something rather intoxicating in other forms. So it comes down to the casting of Carrey and Winslet, something that I've never had much a problem with. I don't want to chalk this up to generational gap, but then again I seem to be the Board's sole defender of The Brothers Bloom as well.
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

I think there are times when people get down on something just because it has a broad base of popularity. To complain about Kaufman attempting to be clever with his prose is like complaining that Kubrick was too attached to his visuals or that Dali was a little too fond of melting watches. Sometimes you have to look at an artist and understand you're going to get a certain product from them. You can like them or not, that's your prerogative.

Not everyone likes Kubrick or Dali or Kaufman or any other artist with a singular style. There will be segments of the population that consider each masters of form, and others that think their work is utter crap. It's going to happen. We shouldn't be at all surprised.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

Damien wrote that Eternal Sunshine... exists for its own cleverness, to announce Kaufman's own cleverness, like all his scripts. I've since come down a little on Adaptation., but I will continue to herald the genius of Being John Malkovich, Synecdoche, New York, and especially Eternal Sunshine.... What I love about Being John Malkovich is that it is, as you touch on, the most mundane absurdist film I've ever seen. You say that Kaufman has to get more bizarre with every film, but outside of Synecdoche I don't think he has. The memory-altering devices of Lacuna exist for practical purposes, whereas Being John Malkovich's portal into JM's head is a throwaway. These are his two great films though, and they both utilize abstract magical devices to explore psychological territory. Being John Malkovich touches on so many little things innate in self and celebrity that it really is ultimately about itself. But this is not the case with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It's a film that lays its thesis on the line quite clearly: in order to succeed at love, we must fail at love. So I'm a bit dubious of claims that Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a film about its own cleverness because if there's one film in Kaufman's canon that is not, this is it.
Kaufman writes like a schizophrenic who forgets to take his medication. And that's not fun to watch.

I think this is why we don't agree on things. Watching a schizophrenic write while on his medication is probably a fairly dull thing to watch. He's going to get down on himself at times, but ultimately his peaks and valleys aren't going to be that amusing. He's going to finish the book on time and maybe it'll be good. Watching a schizophrenic OFF his medication...that's gotta be fascinating. Who knows what he's going to do? It could end up being 20,000 pages tracking the genealogy of horses or a video collage of him skull-fucking his laptop. I think it's way more interesting to watch a schizophrenic off his meds write.
"How's the despair?"
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

You posted a lot of "best of decade" stuff only some of which you wrote yourself. I don't remember what you wrote about Eternal Sunshine, nor can I find the post.

I'll grant you its's a film that has a lot of supporters. I don't happen to be one. I liked Being John Malkovich because despite the absurdity, John Cusack, Cameron Diaz, Catherine Keener and the rest of the cast made it work, but Kaufman doesn't leave well enough alone. He has to get more clever, more bizarre with every film.

I have a hard time warming to Jim Carrey as an actor. He tries too hard or something. I just never believe his characters. Here, though, he is more sympathetic, more believable, than Kate Winslet who I didn't care for at all in this, so what's left? The cleverness of the script. And that I liked even less than Winslet.

The Coen Brothers are another story. They've had some missteps (The Hudsucker Proxy; the dreadful remake of The Ladykillers), but more often than not their writing is not only clever, it's downright brilliant. Kaufman writes like a schizophrenic who forgets to take his medication. And that's not fun to watch.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

I understand completely what Damien is saying here, and I agree.

I liked Being John Malkovich but Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine were too cutely clever by far. I liked the cleverness of Synecdoche, New York better but it's not a film I'm likely to revisit.

Before I take issue, I'd like to take a moment and point out that I wrote a fairly lengthy review of Eternal Sunshine... (as well as several other pieces) elsewhere in my Best of the Decade posting that went fairly unnoticed.

A film has to really be irritatingly smug for me to deride a film as being "clever." This might be why I have a higher tolerance for Coen Brothers films than most, although I maintain that the ratio of like/dislike isn't as lopsided as some here seem to think. Anyway...

Deriding Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind as clever for clever's sake doesn't hold water with me. Were this a movie resigned simply to boasting a "clever" premise (of two lovers erasing each other from their memories, chasing each other through each's subconsciousness), I would agree. Being John Malkovich also boasts a magical/abstract device to plumb some degree of psychological territory. Neither film settles for hijinks though. They're both narratives devoted from beginning to end towards exploring a central thesis. With Eternal Sunshine..., it's the notion that we have to fail at love in life to succeed in life later, and that wishing this pain away does nothing. I don't understand charges of clever for clever's sake.
"How's the despair?"
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

Two or three embarassingly overrated scripts on this list. But Little Miss Sunshine gets my vote.
Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 19318
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Post by Big Magilla »

I understand completely what Damien is saying here, and I agree.

I liked Being John Malkovich but Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine were too cutely clever by far. I liked the cleverness of Synecdoche, New York better but it's not a film I'm likely to revisit.

That said, however, the obviousness of Crash makes it the runaway winner/loser. Haggis' subsequent work beginning with Million Dollar Baby (written after, released before) has been much better.

Little Miss Sunshine, though, is a charmer. I never did understand the malevolence toward it.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

In the face of Crash, I'm amazed that there so much hate for other screenplays on this list...shocking, I say.

Not really. There's two solo picks, and half as much hatred for Little Miss Sunshine which I certainly understand. I always thought this was going to be a grudge match between these two. Remember the Little Miss Sunshine backlash on this board? It wasn't as fiery but it was very real.

This screenplay, like everything Kaufman does exists for one reason and one reason only -- to demonstrate how "clever" Charlie Kaufman is. It's akin going to friends' home and having to endure their precocious 8-year-old performing (singing, reciting poems, dancing etc.) incessantly for you with the parents' encouragement. Or a yappy little dog nipping at your feet. Like the movie itself, you just want to kick them.

It's a film that says you're going to have to fail at love in order to succeed at love. That's a pretty clearly laid out central thesis, so I don't understand your charges that it exists for its own cleverness. It feels terribly generalized.
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

In the face of Crash, I'm amazed that there so much hate for other screenplays on this list...shocking, I say.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

Sabin wrote:
After much deliberation, Eternal Sunshine because it's more pompous and aggressively awful -- it assualts the viewer.
How so?
This screenplay, like everything Kaufman does exists for one reason and one reason only -- to demonstrate how "clever" Charlie Kaufman is. It's akin going to friends' home and having to endure their precocious 8-year-old performing (singing, reciting poems, dancing etc.) incessantly for you with the parents' encouragement. Or a yappy little dog nipping at your feet. Like the movie itself, you just want to kick them.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
Post Reply

Return to “81st and Other 9th Decade Discussions”