The Oscar Goes To... Some Writer

Anyone who's read this site for any length of time has read me whine about his screenwriters get the shit-end of the stick, so I'll try to keep it a minimum here. But remember this: Judging a screenplay based on the finished film made from it is a dicey call -- there are a lot of hands which shape a film from screenplay to screen. And that's not to mention the others in development who shape the screenplay from the first purchased draft to the shooting script. As many screenwriters have said before, writing a script and allowing someone else to shoot it is like giving birth to child then having someone else raise it.

It can go both ways -- development execs, actors and directors can add to, or detract from, the original script. When you see an Oscar-nominated screenplay, the film probably turned out pretty well, so before you try and judge the screenplay, you have consider what to examine -- the dialogue (except for obvious improv stuff), the characterizations, the plot points -- and what to ignore: the acting, the cinematography, the music, etc. Since there's no way to knwo who contributed exactly what, it's an almost impossible task. That being said, I didn't read any of the nominated scripts this year, so I'll just have to do what I just you shouldn't really do. That's just how I roll.

In this first of the two screenwriting awards, there's yet another uncertainty to factor in -- since they are adapted, a lot of the credit for dialogue, characters and plot points have to go the original author. Although this year that's a little less of a problem, because two of the screenwriters (Shanley and Morgan) adapted their own plays for the screen -- and one, Shanley, directed as well.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Eric Roth for 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'
John Patrick Shanley for 'Doubt'
Peter Morgan for 'Frost/Nixon'
Simon Beaufoy for 'Slumdog Millionaire'
David Hare for 'The Reader'

THE NOMS: Once again, I have to recuse myself on 'The Reader' because I refuse to see it haven't seen it yet, but the others seem reasonable.

WHO SHOULD WIN: Beaufoy and Hare both adapted novels, so it's hard to know just what they brought to the table. I like Roth's work in 'Button', and it's much different than the short story, but its similarity to his own previous work ('Forrest Gump'), and the fact the story is a bit overshadowed by David Fincher's visual wizardry leave it a bit short in my mind. Morgan and Shanley adapted their own plays, so they're the auteurs, and both shooting scripts were tight, with rich character, and crisp dialogue. In a close race, I'll take Morgan.

WHO WILL WIN: Shanley and Morgan each have a decent shot, but I say Beaufoy takes the prize on what will likely be a landslide night for 'Slumdog'.

Movie Review: 'Doubt'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

Doubt is a very well done film. So well done I feel bad criticizing it. But that’s exactly what I’m going to do. The film features such great performances -- by the whole cast, really -- it’s almost impossible not to like, and I did like it to some extent. But there’s a staleness to it. A stiffness not just by choice, but by an inertia of plot. An inability to expose much in terms of information, either as story, or backstory.

What there is centers around a priest, Father Brendan Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who we get the feeling is new to this catholic school. Father Flynn gives good sermon -- we find that out right away, in the opening scene. We soon learn he’s good with the boys -- maybe too good. He’s clearly taken a special interest in one young African-American boy. And Sister Aloysius Beauvier (Meryl Streep) is suspicious there may be something more to it than that. And that’s about as far as the film gets, exploring that doubt, the lengths to which her suspicions will drive her, and the repercussions, which -- without spoiling too much -- aren’t exactly earth-shattering.

Character studies don’t necessarily rely on plot, however, and the film does feature a few interesting characters, and one absolutely terrifying one -- Sister Aloysius, who hisses more than speaks, and scares the bejesus out of every boy in the school -- and most of the faculty. Her right hand (or stooge) is Sister James (a meek and mousey Amy Adams), who does her bidding, digs up information to aid her drive to know all there is to know about Father Flynn. Her fixation drives the movie, and Streep performance carries the film.

Hoffman is also great, and is Adams. So is Viola Davis, who plays the boy in question’s mother, and steals the movie with the cold realism of her opening scene. The acting is so great because they have room to just act -- there’s no driving story or subtext to get in their way. That’s why I’m sure it was a great play -- because that art form is for actors. At times, this seemed like like a movie, and more like the best acting class you could ever stumble in on.

While Streep will get all the accolades and award nominations for her role -- and deservedly so -- Hoffman has to show more range. He goes from happy and friendly to outraged, never missing a beat. We never know if he's the nice priest unfairly badgered, or the too-nice guy who's able to use that "he'd never do something like that" persona to cover his intentions. Streep is the film's star though, and her character is its most memorable element. She not only serves as the face of the movie, she might serve that position for the entire Catholic church of that era.

Of course, ’Doubt’ was an award-winning play, written by John Patrick Shanley, who adapted it for the big screen and directed it as well. This isn’t anywhere near Shanley’s first screenwriting gig -- he won an Oscar for ’Moonstruck’ in 1987, and has done all kinds of work, from critically acclaimed indies (’Five Corners’) and TV movies (’Live From Baghdad’) to literary adaptations for big budget studio films (’Alive’, ’Congo’). Shanley has directed before, but it’s not really something he can boast about. He was the guy who couldn’t make a ton of money by putting Meg Ryan and Tom hanks in a movie in the 90’s. Of course, he was the first to try -- he wrote and directed the big budget flop, ’Joe Versus The Volcano’ in 1990 (four years before Nora Ephron made the first of two huge hits with Hanks and Ryan).

As a director, Shanley does a credible job -- the film is aesthetically pleasing -- but overdoes it a bit with the dutch angles (when the camera is purposely titled at a diagonal angle). Maybe it’s to overcome the lack of action. Otherwise, he lets the actors do what they do best, which is a considerable help. As is his ability as writer to keep the audience guessing as to whether Sister Aloysius is crazy, or if she may just be on to something.

But since not much happens along the way, and the ending is anti-climactic, the writing falls a distant second to the actors. If that’s enough for you, you’ll probably love ’Doubt’, If not, steer clear.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'Doubt':

CONSIDER

Next up: 'Revolutionary Road'