Categories One-by-One: Adapted Screenplay

[dws1982]

Having seen All Quiet on the Western Front now, I don't want it to win. The changes it makes to the novel are not to the film's advantage; most egregiously, the title, which is significant in the book as how the day in which one of the main characters dies is described, becomes meaningless. The guy just happened to get shot on what was otherwise a pretty peaceful day, one that the officers logged as "All quiet on the Western Front" ("Nothing new in the west" is how it literally translates). Here, by moving that action to the last day of the war, the last minutes even, the title becomes an artifact. I don't think the armistice negotiations add anything either. I don't think these things will matter to voters who often go for whatever movie they like best.

I don't have any idea between it and Women Talking though. Sabin's point that it would be a screenplay-only nominee with a slightly shifted karma is a good one, but maybe that Best Picture nomination is enough. I guess I would vote for Living although I do wish Ishiguro had taken more chances to play around with the structure of the Kurosawa film.

[Okri]

Well, now I want Polley to win

[Mister Tee]

Curious now - would you recommend The Irishman to your parents (2019 NY winner)? I did for mine and they really liked it.

Ah -- I didn't realize I'd accidentally bypassed that. I did recommend it to them, but hadn't truly needed to: my mother had already bought my father I Hear You Paint Houses for Christmas that year. I also recommended 2017's winner Lady Bird.

[Okri]

Curious now - would you recommend The Irishman to your parents (2019 NY winner)? I did for mine and they really liked it.

[Mister Tee]

One thing that was lingering in the back of my mind about All Quiet on the Western Front's performance at BAFTA is the World War I has a much stronger presence in the cultural fabric of the UK/Commonwealth than it does in the United States (certainly compared to World War II). All Quiet on the Western Front was actually required reading for me in grade eight, as an example. 1917 won BAFTA but lost to Parasite at AMPAS and while I haven't delved as deeply as I was tempted to during the nominations, World War I is certainly not hugely represented amongst the best picture nominees in general. I wondered if there was a degree of remoteness to the war.

Something I've noticed, watching films made in the early to mid-1930s: whenever WWI is referenced, even in passing, it's clear the war left nothing but disillusionment in its path. Even in a fantasy movie like Berkeley Square, the sense of loss derived from it is palpable. This stands in stark contrast to how WWII was treated in the US, especially during my youth: post-war baby boomers were raised with the belief that war meant glory and vindication for the good guys (conveniently, us). This obviously created its own problems, as the morass of Vietnam was impossible to square with this triumphalism. I'd argue that one of the prime elements in creating the Trumpist MAGA crowd (along with the self-evident racism) is this sense that someone screwed up the country by "losing" a war which everyone knew we were destined to win; almost 50 years on, they still resent the leaders who created the situation, and the hippie crowd who saw reality better than they did.

I think you're right, that Europe -- which bore the brunt of WWI, while America only appeared in the final reel to snap up credit -- is likely to feel more connected to a film about that conflict. But I think there are things about this version of All Quiet that makes it hold greater appeal for educated Americans, specifically that it's a what's-become-rare reminder of what they used to like in their movies. There's never been a time when popcorn stuff didn't sell tickets -- at the height of the legendary 70s, disaster movies made buckets of money, as did James Bond. But there was also the sense that, every year, there'd be a few -- maybe more -- that aspired to tell a story that had some kind of meaning to it. That's what feels like has been missing in recent times, and the situation has grown ever more acute during this pandemic stretch. Having supposedly legitimate critics tell you you need to vote for Spider Man: No Way Home or Top Gun: Maverick in this spot is insulting; I think most people intuitively realize that. They know that's not the answer. But, at the same time, they're asking, Where's my Best Years of Our Lives...From Here to Eternity...Bridge on the River Kwai...even Terms of Endearment? They don't see them coming out of Hollywood these days.

And I don't think the loftier critics are helping that much, either. All four of those movies I just named won a best picture prize from the NY Film Critics. Compare that to the past four winners in NY: Roma, First Cow, Drive My Car, TAR. I LIKE most of those films, but I can easily realize they're specialty-audience movies. If my parents -- intelligent, lifelong filmgoers -- asked me if they should watch them, I'd be hard-pressed to say yes.

But I was able to recommend All Quiet to them, and they very much liked it. It was what the best movies used to be their entire lives till now: an intelligent, well-made, gripping story that was about something of moment. I have my own reservations about the film, not least of which that it's a near-century-old retread. But I appreciate that, if you gave me something that resembled this movie in most every way, only it was fresh material, I could see being enthusiastic about it as best picture material.

[Okri]

As long as we're talking about All Quiet on the Western Front, I'll just share anecdotally that I'm doing my annual "Sabin watches the Oscar movies with his Dad and his awful girlfriend" series to put forward a greater effort to not hate this person (we're getting there). Last night, we spoke about The Banshees of Inisherin, Top Gun: Maverick, and All Quiet on the Western Front. They hated The Banshees of Inisherin and couldn't stand the fingers being cut off. They thought Top Gun: Maverick was nothing special. But All Quiet on the Western Front? They were both in agreement it was one of the best films they had ever seen. For them, it was a real learning experience about World War I, making me wonder truly whether we're overlooking the fact that World War I is very fresh ground for a lot of viewers. They thought the acting was fantastic. The crosscutting to the negotiating table really worked for them. And for whatever this is worth, I thought there would just be one hurdle for them, that being as the children of Holocaust survivors they have an anti-German bias that creeps up even in the most anodyne circumstances. Not only did they not care, I don't think it crossed their mind. It really opened their mind to how the circumstances of German surrender led to the rise of nationalism, Nazism, and World War II.

Thanks Sabin for this.

One thing that was lingering in the back of my mind about All Quiet on the Western Front's performance at BAFTA is the World War I has a much stronger presence in the cultural fabric of the UK/Commonwealth than it does in the United States (certainly compared to World War II). All Quiet on the Western Front was actually required reading for me in grade eight, as an example. 1917 won BAFTA but lost to Parasite at AMPAS and while I haven't delved as deeply as I was tempted to during the nominations, World War I is certainly not hugely represented amongst the best picture nominees in general. I wondered if there was a degree of remoteness to the war.

ETA

Top Gun is just a atrocity, here. I'd like to have a writer who voted for it watch the trading-insults bar scene with me and defend that as a screenwriting achievement.

I don't think I disliked the movie as much as you did, but I'm very resentful towards the writers for making me watch it. I would've comfortably skipped it even with a best picture nomination without that screenplay nomination. And I've heard defenses of the screenplay, but even on pure pop grounds, it's quite bad. I also know I watched Top Gun but have absolutely no memory of it [except that in a "how to write a movie" book that I bought when I was a teenager featured it positively].

[Sonic Youth]

Hey, some people prefer no fingers to hot dog fingers.

My wife is not one of them.

For all this talk about "I've heard reports of older Academy members not being able to sit through Everything, Everywhere...", are we sure members are sitting through Banshees? Because my wife couldn't. When that first appendage was flung at the door, she quit the movie and then resented me for the rest of the evening, since the movie was my suggestion. Not that she liked Everything Everywhere either, but at least she sat through that one.

[Big Magilla]

Hey, some people prefer no fingers to hot dog fingers.

As far as adapted is concerned, I think Women Talking wins unless All Quiet on the Western Front sweeps as it did at BAFTA, which could happen. Stay tuned.

[Sabin]

I think All Quiet on the Western Front gets it for really just one reason. If the Academy wasn't mandated to go to ten nominees this year, does anyone think Women Talking would be a Best Picture nominee? And would anybody be predicting it to win with a sole nomination? Living would have gotten more nominations than Women Talking, and truly with that pedigree and ensemble there's no excuse for that. All Quiet on the Western Front may be the "Guy Caucus" but I think its pedigree (classic novel with numerous writerly and timely changes) will help put it over the top.

As long as we're talking about All Quiet on the Western Front, I'll just share anecdotally that I'm doing my annual "Sabin watches the Oscar movies with his Dad and his awful girlfriend" series to put forward a greater effort to not hate this person (we're getting there). Last night, we spoke about The Banshees of Inisherin, Top Gun: Maverick, and All Quiet on the Western Front. They hated The Banshees of Inisherin and couldn't stand the fingers being cut off. They thought Top Gun: Maverick was nothing special. But All Quiet on the Western Front? They were both in agreement it was one of the best films they had ever seen. For them, it was a real learning experience about World War I, making me wonder truly whether we're overlooking the fact that World War I is very fresh ground for a lot of viewers. They thought the acting was fantastic. The crosscutting to the negotiating table really worked for them. And for whatever this is worth, I thought there would just be one hurdle for them, that being as the children of Holocaust survivors they have an anti-German bias that creeps up even in the most anodyne circumstances. Not only did they not care, I don't think it crossed their mind. It really opened their mind to how the circumstances of German surrender led to the rise of nationalism, Nazism, and World War II.

Anyway, I'm still wondering if this film really does actually have a shot at upsetting at the Academy Awards. Sure, Everything Everywhere All At Once swept the PGA, the DGA, the SAG, and the WGA, but it lost big at BAFTA and that's the one place where the two films competed.

[Mister Tee]

Considering this category -- and recalling the rather weak slates we've seen for, now, several years -- has led me to one of my view-from-five-miles-up conclusions: something has changed in this particular spot on the Oscar ballot that, I think, reflects a change in American movie-making in general, and may be connected to the falling away of the intelligent mainstream audience (a phrase that didn't used to be oxymoronic). My overall take: the film business used to generate films based on popular art from other media (most notably, current fiction and theatre), but, nowadays, what's pushed as mainstream content largely consists of sequels, remakes, and non-fiction. The last truly popular novel to get nominated, with a significant shot at top Oscars, was probably Life of Pi, and that's a decade back. (A few others, like Inherent Vice and The White Tiger, have shown up as throw-in nominees, and 2015 was at least fiction-dominated, though I was unfamiliar with many of the tiles cited, prior to their film versions.) This trend strikes me as a significant change: a sign that major studios have abandoned grown-up drama as a viable genre.

Regrettably, circumstance and a tight calendar leave me unable to elaborate fully on this new thesis just now. Consider this a promissory note for a piece I hope to generate once AMPAS madness has passed and I can give it my full attention.

As for this year's batch: Late in the year, it looked like an all-time obscurity list that would bear comparison to 2017's James-Ivory-and-assorted-clowns slate. That we ended up with 3 best picture nominees in the grouping is more a result of barely-/un-deserving films making that top list than of a late increase in quality.

Top Gun is just a atrocity, here. I'd like to have a writer who voted for it watch the trading-insults bar scene with me and defend that as a screenwriting achievement.

The original Knives Out had the advantage of novelty, and a great cast. This time around, it felt a bit tired all around. Still, it's probably one of the better options voters had for those 4th and 5th slots.

Living certainly has its Nobel pedigree, and is admirable in its very modest way. But its heartbeat seems to match its leading man's: dramatic excitement has never been something he's sought in life. (Disclaimer: Ikiru is in my top ten of Famous Movies I've Somehow Never Seen, so I can't offer any comparison to the original. Except to say, yes, this, too, is a sign of films cannibalizing themselves rather than creating something new -- why not a film version of one of Ishiguro's other novels?)

The issue seems down to All Quiet and Women Talking, which can quickly be seen as male/female polarities -- the former offering barely a sighting of a woman, the latter the same in reverse. Moreover, their styles seem divided down gender-preferred lines: All Quiet is full of action/war sequences, and wouldn't normally be considered much of a screenplay candidate (as, say, Platoon wasn't); Women Talking is just what its title promises: a group of articulate ladies hashing out a vital life decision in words-words-words.

I'm really not sure which way to go with this. Each film has won precursors -- All Quiet BAFTA, Women Talking USC and WGA -- but, in every case, without its opposite number on the ballot. So, effectively, they're meeting one another for the first time. All Quiet has some enthusiasm behind it, as BAFTA displayed well beyond this category, but it also has the century-old-news shadow hanging over it. Women Talking has some quite zealous support, but also -- sadly -- some shockingly misogynist opposition. There are still people -- not MAGAs, people you'd have thought educated -- who think "I hear enough women talking in my life" is good joke; many of them seem to have responded to this film as something akin to Ebola, something that must be eradicated. I confess, I have no idea what will prevail from this volatile mix. My temptation is to predict Women Talking, but to steel myself for my inevitably being wrong, as the Guy Caucus wins in the end.

Which makes this one of over a dozen categories this year on which I can't feel confident. I can't recall a year when so many races felt so unsettled at this late a date.

[Okri]

Both screenplay categories are interesting, but for opposite reasons. This one is barren – which is unusual for adapted screenplay. The nominees….

All Quiet on the Western Front
Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery
Living
Top Gun: Maverick
Women Talking

So, let’s take a look at the statistics shall we. Using 1957 as our starting point (the first year of the two screenplay categories as we understand them), the four categories the winners fall in

Best Picture Winner: 30
Best Picture Nominee but didn’t win: 33
Nominated elsewhere, but not best picture: 2
Only nominated here: 0

So, this shouldn’t be super surprising but in the 65 races from 1957, only two films won adapted screenplay without being nominated for best picture (Sling Blade, Gods and Monsters). And of course, both of those wins were in the era of five – I think Gods and Monsters would likely had made a list of ten (Sling Blade? I’ll defer to others on that). And none have won with it being the only nomination. Sorry Glass Onion. And Living is probably out too. I’m tempted to twist myself in knots and say Living actually has a chance, though. But that requires some magical thinking.

So now it comes to the three best picture nominees. Now, objectively speaking, I cannot find a precedent for Top Gun winning (Tee, shut your eyes). I haven’t seen The French Connection in forever, but it feels like it would be the closest antecedent. War or war adjacent movies struggle to win in writing categories (I guess Return of the King would be a war-adjacent movie that won, given how much of the film is actually on battlefields; The Hurt Locker obviously won in original, as did Patton). Heck, the original All Quiet on the Western Front won best picture and lost screenplay, even with a fairly august group of writers associated with the screenplay. At the same time, if they really like the movie, I think it could win. Some of the interlude scenes are written quite solidly (the scenes between the Paul and Katz specifically). But it’s such a technical achievement I feel like if it wins, it’ll be as part of a sweep (which benefited Return of the King). Which I’m not expecting.

So I guess it’s Women Talking. It’s a serious minded, issue film. For those that think dialogue is key when it comes to screenwriting, it’s got that in the title. It’s not a big movie, but it doesn’t need to be here. And they liked it enough to nominate it for best picture, which was looking less and less likely as the season went on. But it doesn’t feel like it’s as well liked by AMPAS as the other two best picture nominees. But the other two nominees don’t feel like writing winners.