If I Picked the Winners: Best Adapted Screenplay 2009

     For this week's edition of "If I Picked the Winners", I will be peering into the recent past: 2009. Being so close to our current time in this never ending story (with no flying dragon-dogs mind you) that we call History, it's hard to say anything profound about the year in cinema that was 2009. The "does it stand the test of time" trial is inapplicable in this case, with at least another two or three years to go before we can even begin to get proper distance for objective judgement, but at this early stage of the game, my own opinion is that history will treat 2009 kindly. It wasn't the stellar year that 2007 was, but still very solid nonetheless. What I especially appreciated about 2009 was the wide variety of high-quality art and entertainment that was offered. Whether you were into sci-fi ("Avatar", "Star Trek"), comedy ("Up in the Air", "Fantastic Mr. Fox", "Funny People", "In the Loop", "The Informant", and for people who like dark meat, "A Serious Man"), family ("Fantastic Mr. Fox", "Up"), drama ("A Serious Man", "The White Ribbon", "The Secrets in Their Eyes", "Precious"),  action ("Inglorious Basterds", "The Hurt Locker", "Public Enemies"), or like myself, a mix of all of the above, then there was some really well-crafted options for you the choose from. Of course, a lot of this is due to some extremely well written scripts (the birth place of all good movies), which will be looking at today.

     Now for most years, it is more likely than not that the stronger batch of screenplays will come from the "adapted" side (movies based on previously published material, which usually means books), but 2009 actually had a stronger year for original material, a rare feet indeed (especially given Hollywood's recent total lack of originality). That doesn't mean the year's adapted screenplays were anything to scoff at. As the year was strong all-around, this meant there were a fair many high merit adaptations, including most of the nominees. Unfortunately, as is par for the Academy, they left off some very worthy contenders in favor of one or two questionable choices. The most egregious error on the Academy's part was their failure to nominate the brilliant Wes Anderson-Noah Baumbach translation of the Ronald Dahl  book, "Fantastic Mr. Fox". Given the Academy's history of under-appreciating the outstanding films of Mr. Anderson, I guess the snub wasn't all that surprising, but seeing as how the film managed a Best Animated Feature nominee, you would of thought the writers might have given the film some consideration. Another film that would have have made my cut, was the Argentine film that won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film, "The Secrets in Their Eyes". Based on the novel, "La Pregunta de sus ojos" (which I believe roughly translates into "The Question in Their Eyes", by Eduardo Sacheri, the film is one of the best modern day crime/noir films I have seen in quite some time (very reminiscent of the excellent Kurosawa film, "Stray Dog"). Finally, as a replacement for the one science fiction film that managed to get a nomination in the category, I would have preferred to have seen Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman's reboot of "Star Trek" among the nominees. I'm no Trekkie, but the film was a superb rendering of Gene Roddenberry television series. So much so in fact that the film's sequel is one of the only (out of numerous) continuations of a film series that I am actually looking forward to, but now let's get down to the actual nominees.

5. Neil Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell for "District 9"

         "District 9" is a frustrating film, and the main source of this frustration lies within the film's script. Widely praised by critics and fans alike, including an Oscar nomination for Best Picture (the sci-fi film's equivalent to a third-party candidate winning the American presidency) the film (based on a short by Neil Blomkamp) does show a lot of potential, which makes it understandable (to a point) why so many were quick to heap praise on the film.  Like Berlin during the 1936 Olympics though, it's all a carefully orchestrated show to cover up the true decrypted state of existence beneath (in this case a poor plot, not the persecution of Jews). The film starts off with a clever "office documentary" (in the vein of some of the better produced "pre-shows" you might watch in a queue at Disney World or Universal Studios) of Multi-National United, the corporation in charge of overseeing the military compound ghetto set up for a race of alien beings in Johannesburg, South Africa. After an initial welcoming attitude toward the extraterrestrial creatures referred to as "The Prawns", intergalactic relations begin to deteriorate, as humans begin to see the creatures as an inferior subspecies, which leaves it to the good people at Multi-National United to do humanity's dirty work and evict the unwanted Prawns. The set-up is novel enough, but their are two weaknesses in the structure that prevent the film from being up to code. The first is likely to anger some of you (especially if you're a sci-fi fan), because it is a long held tradition in the science fiction genre, and that is the film's allegorical nature. Almost since the birth of the genre (somewhere post-Verne though, because I really don't see "Journey to the Center of the Earth" as an allegory on the extremes the British will go to in order to expand their empire), the use of the allegory has been a staple in the genre, it's bread and butter. Here's the thing though, I hate allegories, which is why my affections for the science fiction genre fall short of "fan boy" levels. Allegories almost always come off as extremely patronizing, treating it's audience like obedient choir boys, and "District 9"'s parallels with South Africa's apartheid are so blatantly obvious, that it reaches the level of "superliminal" ("The Simpsons" reference for those lapsed in their cartoon TV knowledge). More than the obvious allegory though, what really disappointed was the film's action-sequence heavy finale. A film that is smart enough stylistically to start off with a "faux documentary" should not end in a prolonged "watch shit blow-up" ending that could have easily fit into the "Transformers" series. It especially hurts because the CGI-action sequence is the modern day Black Plague in terms of cinematic originality, so to see such a promising movie squander a great opportunity leaves a bitter, bitter taste. "Et tu Brute?"

4. Nicholas Hornby for "An Education"

    Based on the memoirs of Lynn Barber, "An Education" tells the "coming-of-age" story of one London Suburbanite teenage girl's foray into a relationship with a middle-age con-artist. Written by Nicholas Hornby, the film's script hits all of the paces required by the bylaws of the "coming-of-age" genre, but this is exactly its problem. It's afraid to venture out into any uncharted territory, satisfied with the safety of the caricatures it creates. On a certain level though it's hard to blame the script, because I honestly believe in real life these people acted like the caricatures portrayed. In fact, I'm sure that was the whole point for these people. How many teenage girls living the boring predictable suburban/school life wouldn't jump at the opportunity to go out and experience the glamourous city life with a good-looking older man? And how would they act? Probably like their stereo-typical view of how the glamorous should act. And would you really expect anything other than phony pseudo intellectualism from a con-artist with a thing for younger girls? I know I wouldn't. Does the film then skirt any responsibility for the inauthenticity of its characters? Using predictable subject matter is a decision made by writers and directors, so in my book I would hold them responsible for this (they could have always made another movie), but beyond any weaknesses in the source material, I still think there was flaw on the writers part. As an audience, in many movies we are basically given the role of uninvolved (or respectful) God, watching the characters make their life of their own accord. From this perspective then, even in a world of card board cut-outs, we should still be able to gleam some insight into the characters and their true motivations, but film chooses instead to run the "mysterious twist" route, which isn't the wisest choice given the predictability of the film's characters. It does execute the story at a good tempo and keeps you into the story throughout, so the script is by no means without merit, but its adherence to form prevents it from stepping out of the genre's shadows.

3. Geoffrey Fletcher for "Precious"

     "Precious", whose source material is probably known by many who neither saw the movie or read the book (due to the fact that the film is sometimes given the full title, "Precious: Based on the novel Push by Sapphire"), was the eventual surprise winner in this category. Written by Geoffrey Fletcher, even though it ranks third in this list (it was really a coin-flip between this and the next screenplay), it is a deserving winner. The very fact that Mr. Fletcher was able to make a story about a sexually abused African-American teenage girl on her second incestual pregnancy something more meaningful than a Public Service Announcement shows off the man's incredible storytelling skills. One of the strongest points of the script (and the film) is its unwavering resolve in showing how hard Precious's life is, and how demanding and disturbed her mother is. This is one dark, dark film that pulls no punches, but it is this depth of misery that makes the lighter moments (such as Precious's dream sequences) so meaningful (a bit like life). Instead glossing over the whole situation, trying to please everyone and anyone (did I hear someone yell out "The Blind Side"), the film always has a True North, which is to treat it's characters with enough dignity and respect to portray them as they truly are, no matter how ugly that may be. More than anything, the film is able to expose emotional nerves to the point that is rarely displayed in cinema (or any other form of art for that matter). Particularly with Precious's mom, the twisted form that her jealously takes, is not only powerful for how perverted it may seem to us at times, but how incredibly deep and sincere it is apart of her. It basically is her identity as a human being, and no matter how harshly we may want to judge it, it doesn't and can not change the veracity with which she feels the emotions (Hitler too was a man of his convictions). The small qualm I have with the screenplay is its focus on some of the peripheral characters. These characters are put too much in a "savior" light for my taste, and it is really an unnecessary distraction from the primal mother-daughter tension that is the heart of the film. Great accomplishment overall though, and maybe the best film to deal with the subject matter that it does.

2. Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner for "Up in the Air"

     Coming into the Oscar season with a full head of steam from critic after critic awards, to high buzz from the festival circuit, a backlash against "Up in the Air" was almost inevitable. Add in director/writer Jason Reitman's irritating hipster act, and a sort of arrogance that no single human being has ever contemplated the thoughts that go through his mind, and I can't blame people for holding a grudge against the film. My biggest problem with the script is its tendency to try and some up the zeitgeist of the times in nicely packaged ready-to-go phrases, but if you put your biases aside, the film does have some (non-essential) insight, not so much into "the times" and the hectic pace at which we move, but to the film's characters and their personality types. Based on a the book by Walter Kirn, the film does a nice job of playing off the relationships between the its three main characters, Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), Alex Goran (Vera Farminga), and Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick). Each character has their weaknesses and strengths, and they use one another to feel their own voids, all the while trying to act as if they were perfectly comfortable in their own skin. Especially in the case of Kendrick's character, a young idealist and romanticist who has yet been beaten down enough to view the world through the cynical, jaded eyes that her two elder companions do, you have a sympathetic but naive character that feels representative of youth not only in 2009, but in generations for many decades throughout history. An important part of getting these characters right is realistic depiction of their aspirations. Being young, Kendrick's character still has high aspirations of the increasingly successful job, with a perfect husband and dream family. Having been around the block before, Clooney and Farminga's characters are just looking for comfort, absence of stress. Aspirations are what make us move, so correctly framing your character's goals is an important part of creating a meaningful story. Add in some good scenes of humor, and "Up in the Air" is a great mix comedy, drama, and sympathy. Just don't let Jason Reitman know. It's likely to go to his head.

1. Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, and Tony Roche for "In the Loop"

     Based on a British television series, "In the Loop" chronicles the bureaucratic buffoonery and inside politics that takes place between Washington and Downing Street in the lead up to a major foreign war. Meant as satirical criticism against the Bush and Blair administrations for their handling of the Iraq War, no matter what your stance on the war was (is), you can't help but laugh your head off. It's that well written. With the comedic timing of a 1940's Howard Hawkes screwball comedy, the jokes and one-liners come at you a mile a minute, almost to the point where it's hard to comprehend it all, which isn't helped by the fact the some of the accents can be pretty thick (especially the Scottish accents!). Every line you do catch though is comedic gold, and missing a line or two just acts as an incentive to watch the film over again, which isn't a bad idea by any means. Instead of just tempting with a mouth-watering description of these deliciously hilarious lines, how about some free samples? "No, no, no, you needn't worry about the Canadians, they're just happy to be there. [pause] Yes, well, they always looked surprise when they're invited". "'PWIP-PIP'? Who wrote that, Charles Dickens?". "'Climbing the mountain of conflict'? You sounded like a Nazi Julie Andrews." "You think that's his real name? Iceman? To Mr and Mrs. Man, a son... Ice?" My absolutely favorite line from the film though, and the best line from 2009 (as well as one of the best from the decade, maybe cinema history), is when the wishy-washy Simon Foster says to his aid Toby Wright in discussing the upcoming War Committee meeting, "It'll be easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy", to which Toby replies, "No It won't. It'll be difficult-difficult-lemon-difficult". Then when Foster is pressed to take sides on the war during the meeting, he avoids committing to either side by saying, "In England we have a saying for a situation such as this, which is that it is difficult-difficult-lemon-difficult." My only problem with the script is that towards the ending, it drops it's zany tone in favor of a more sanctimonious one, in order to make a statement on the war. Ironically, I think this actually weakens their argument, because it brings it down to base political squabbles. Had it kept it's humorous tone throughout, like Robert Altman's "M*A*S*H", it would have been a more powerful statement on the ridiculousness of the situation. Even with the weak finale, "In the Loop" is still a superbly written script, one of the best written comedies in recent memory, and should have walked away with the award.

     That's it for this week, so until next time, leave your commits down below.