Editor's note: Welcome to the nineteenthof a 33-part series dissecting the 83rd Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category of the Oscars. To read any other posts regarding this event, please click the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!
by Jason from The Entertainment Junkie
I’m currently taking a class called Russian Literature in World Cinema. On the first day of class, my professor asked us one question: what makes a good adaptation of a book into a movie? It’s a complicated question. For me, movies are more like short stories, whereas television series/miniseries are more like novels. Therefore, when a book is adapted into a movie, I see it as editing a novel into a short story: things are going to have to be cut. Sometimes those things are subplots, sometimes background characters, and sometimes little moments of character development. The success of an adaptation, then, comes from how the screenwriter preserves the essence of the literature he’s adapting: does the film keep the main plot, and do the natures of the main characters remain intact? 2007’s Adapted Screenplay category had an example of success and failure: the Coens’ No Country for Old Men script perfectly embodied the nihilism of Cormac McCarthy’s novel, while Christopher Hampton’s Atonement screenplay lost Ian McEwan’s gorgeous novel (though I should say that no film version could really do justice to McEwan’s magnificent use of the English language).
I wish I could judge this year’s crop of adapted screenplays on how well they are adapted from their source material, but of the four films that are based works of literature, I have read none of them. So I can only judge based on the screenplays themselves, though I encourage anyone who has read the source material to offer their comparisons. The films are also ranked in order of how deserving of the Oscar I think they are.
1. The Social Network; screenplay by Aaron Sorkin, based on The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich
There’s a major backlash against The Social Network right now: those who hailed the film as the best of the year and an instant masterpiece are now referring to it as overrated, and the various awards groups have now decided that, after two months of fawning over the film, The King’s Speech is the best film of all time. I, on the other hand, wasn’t crazy about the film from the very beginning; it’s a very good film, maybe even a borderline great film, but not one of the best of the year. That being said, there’s no denying Sorkin’s brilliant screenplay, which takes on a Rashomon-like structure that never sides with anyone, instead portraying all sides as deeply flawed men fueled by entitlement and/or hubris. The script is littered with great quips, true to Sorkin’s style (my favorite: “Dating you is like dating a Stairmaster.”). And the script does something that the final film glosses over: does singular ownership of anything exist anymore, and more importantly, did it ever exist to begin with? It’s taken a long time for Sorkin to finally earn an Oscar nomination, and he deserves the win.
2. Toy Story 3; screenplay by Michael Arndt, story by John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, and Lee Unkrich
I don’t really understand why sequels are automatically considered adapted screenplays, since generally they’re original (well, relatively speaking) stories involving returning characters, rather than the same story told again, a la remakes. Therefore I don’t think Toy Story 3 deserves to be in this category, but should be considered an original screenplay instead. But what I think doesn’t matter, since its already been nominated as adapted, and nothing can change that now. The script for this film is excellent, full of heart and nostalgia for those, like me, who grew up with Toy Story. My biggest complaint is that there are too many new characters that don’t amount to much, and it seems to have more broad jokes in a Dreamworks manner that is, honestly, beneath the Pixar team. Still, there’s no denying that it deserved its nomination and, if not for The Social Network, the win.
3. 127 Hours; screenplay by Simon Beaufoy and Danny Boyle, based on Between a Rock and a Hard Place by Aron Ralston
Here’s an example of a film taking a very difficult premise and turning it into something incredible. However, I’m not sure how much of what made 127 Hours work was in the script; I think of it more as a feat of Danny Boyle’s frantic direction, Jon Harris’s quick-cut editing and James Franco’s magnetic performance. But all that had to come from somewhere, right? The script makes great use of Ralston’s inner thoughts, escaping into fantasy and memories while he is trapped deep in a Utah canyon. The script helps all the other elements come together to capture Ralston as the deeply human character he is, and the result, like it or not, is never boring.
4. True Grit; written for the screen by Ethan & Joel Coen, based on True Grit by Charles Portis
The Coens are quickly becoming a writing mainstay for the Academy, perhaps even to the point of finding a Woody Allen-esque level of love. The True Grit script is certainly well-crafted, complete with a lack of contractions and great moments of Coen-brand humor. However, like the film above, I think True Grit is more of a feat of the Coens’ direction, Roger Deakins’ gorgeous cinematography (please let him win the Oscar for this) and the strong performances, particularly from LEAD actress Hailee Steinfeld. That’s not a knock against the screenplay, but I don’t think it was the strongest element of the film.
5. Winter’s Bone; screenplay by Debra Granik and Anne Rosellini, based on Winter’s Bone by Daniel Woodrell
I was not a major fan of Winter’s Bone either, despite many people’s obvious love for the film. Like The Social Network, I think it’s a good movie that flirts with greatness, but the movie’s strength lies in its stunning cast. The script takes various twists and turns that don’t have much of an impact on the page, and none of them are truly surprising. On its own, it’s not much, but once it’s put to film, every actor sells the story in a way that makes it haunting and great. But since we’re only judging screenplays here, I have to give it my last place spot.
Overall, a great crop of screenplays, if maybe not the strongest in recent years. Maybe one day I’ll be able to find out if they’re successful adaptations or not.
I’m currently taking a class called Russian Literature in World Cinema. On the first day of class, my professor asked us one question: what makes a good adaptation of a book into a movie? It’s a complicated question. For me, movies are more like short stories, whereas television series/miniseries are more like novels. Therefore, when a book is adapted into a movie, I see it as editing a novel into a short story: things are going to have to be cut. Sometimes those things are subplots, sometimes background characters, and sometimes little moments of character development. The success of an adaptation, then, comes from how the screenwriter preserves the essence of the literature he’s adapting: does the film keep the main plot, and do the natures of the main characters remain intact? 2007’s Adapted Screenplay category had an example of success and failure: the Coens’ No Country for Old Men script perfectly embodied the nihilism of Cormac McCarthy’s novel, while Christopher Hampton’s Atonement screenplay lost Ian McEwan’s gorgeous novel (though I should say that no film version could really do justice to McEwan’s magnificent use of the English language).
I wish I could judge this year’s crop of adapted screenplays on how well they are adapted from their source material, but of the four films that are based works of literature, I have read none of them. So I can only judge based on the screenplays themselves, though I encourage anyone who has read the source material to offer their comparisons. The films are also ranked in order of how deserving of the Oscar I think they are.
There’s a major backlash against The Social Network right now: those who hailed the film as the best of the year and an instant masterpiece are now referring to it as overrated, and the various awards groups have now decided that, after two months of fawning over the film, The King’s Speech is the best film of all time. I, on the other hand, wasn’t crazy about the film from the very beginning; it’s a very good film, maybe even a borderline great film, but not one of the best of the year. That being said, there’s no denying Sorkin’s brilliant screenplay, which takes on a Rashomon-like structure that never sides with anyone, instead portraying all sides as deeply flawed men fueled by entitlement and/or hubris. The script is littered with great quips, true to Sorkin’s style (my favorite: “Dating you is like dating a Stairmaster.”). And the script does something that the final film glosses over: does singular ownership of anything exist anymore, and more importantly, did it ever exist to begin with? It’s taken a long time for Sorkin to finally earn an Oscar nomination, and he deserves the win.
I don’t really understand why sequels are automatically considered adapted screenplays, since generally they’re original (well, relatively speaking) stories involving returning characters, rather than the same story told again, a la remakes. Therefore I don’t think Toy Story 3 deserves to be in this category, but should be considered an original screenplay instead. But what I think doesn’t matter, since its already been nominated as adapted, and nothing can change that now. The script for this film is excellent, full of heart and nostalgia for those, like me, who grew up with Toy Story. My biggest complaint is that there are too many new characters that don’t amount to much, and it seems to have more broad jokes in a Dreamworks manner that is, honestly, beneath the Pixar team. Still, there’s no denying that it deserved its nomination and, if not for The Social Network, the win.
Here’s an example of a film taking a very difficult premise and turning it into something incredible. However, I’m not sure how much of what made 127 Hours work was in the script; I think of it more as a feat of Danny Boyle’s frantic direction, Jon Harris’s quick-cut editing and James Franco’s magnetic performance. But all that had to come from somewhere, right? The script makes great use of Ralston’s inner thoughts, escaping into fantasy and memories while he is trapped deep in a Utah canyon. The script helps all the other elements come together to capture Ralston as the deeply human character he is, and the result, like it or not, is never boring.
The Coens are quickly becoming a writing mainstay for the Academy, perhaps even to the point of finding a Woody Allen-esque level of love. The True Grit script is certainly well-crafted, complete with a lack of contractions and great moments of Coen-brand humor. However, like the film above, I think True Grit is more of a feat of the Coens’ direction, Roger Deakins’ gorgeous cinematography (please let him win the Oscar for this) and the strong performances, particularly from LEAD actress Hailee Steinfeld. That’s not a knock against the screenplay, but I don’t think it was the strongest element of the film.
I was not a major fan of Winter’s Bone either, despite many people’s obvious love for the film. Like The Social Network, I think it’s a good movie that flirts with greatness, but the movie’s strength lies in its stunning cast. The script takes various twists and turns that don’t have much of an impact on the page, and none of them are truly surprising. On its own, it’s not much, but once it’s put to film, every actor sells the story in a way that makes it haunting and great. But since we’re only judging screenplays here, I have to give it my last place spot.
Overall, a great crop of screenplays, if maybe not the strongest in recent years. Maybe one day I’ll be able to find out if they’re successful adaptations or not.
