Everyone is waiting to watch as the final nail is driven into Amelia’s coffin — for a short minute there it seemed like it might be able to pull itself out of the bad reviews category — herein will lie the rub for this new Best Pic paradigm: how do you honor Big Hollywood if the sweeping epics that Oscar used to love can’t get arrested by the chorus of film critics and voices online that hand down a verdict before the public gets a crack at it? As an old lady I know this is true: because there is a chorus on the internet that says a movie is bad (or good) it still doesn’t mean that the vast crowds out there in America and across the world are going to agree. Occasionally they agree but more often than not, they don’t.
Here’s the thing, though – when writing a review, why not make it a good read? Ebert’s recent review of Amelia isn’t just a think piece on himself and why he’s right that the movie sucked and where it doesn’t work and why it is going to bomb — most importantly, he doesn’t yarn on about how he would knew it would fail and how right he has now become – is there anything more annoying than that? He writes:
She was an early feminist role model, an American hero not tainted like Lindbergh by chumminess with the Nazis. A few years after her death, U.S women would be asked to hang up their aprons, put on overalls and work on the production lines of the war. She was the real thing. Yes, she signed contracts to endorse chewing gum, soap and a fashion line, but she needed the money to finance her flights, and she always chewed the gum, used the soap, wore the clothes.
Ebert suggests that the raw material itself is why the movie’s plot suffers – how can the story be told any other way without making things up at random? At first I thought one way to tell the story would be the highlight Amelia’s weaknesses. This PBS special on Earhart explained that one of her navigators no longer wanted to fly with her because he “didn’t trust her as a pilot.” On her last flight she made several crucial errors that would have helped save her life.
Anyway, another one bites the dust. Too bad on that.
Meanwhile, David Poland appears to be one who truly relishes the opportunity to pile on:
Q: Why Did Amelia Earhart disappear in 1937?
A; To avoid being embarrassed by the movie about her 72 years later.Q: Can three horrible fake accents equal one irredeemable movie?
A: You bet ya.Q. What’s the difference between Amelia and two hours of uninterrupted sleep?
A. The latter is uninterrupted.Q: What’s so funny about Amelia and Trannys 2’s DVD being released in the same week?
A: Trannys 2 is more entertaining.An actual review to follow…
The funny thing is, he actually says “review to follow” as if anyone is going to bother reading the review? Or maybe they’re all anticipating a true massacre.
66 Responses for "Something Worthwhile as Amelia’s Plane Goes Down"
For the love of god, no more puns.
The movie just doesn’t work. I was pulling my hair out during the screening yesterday, bored to tears.
http://www.thecornercinema.com/?p=539
I’m confused. Is this a situation where Hilary’s performance will be praised, but not the movie? Is she to be counted out of a nomination?
“…how do you honor Big Hollywood if the sweeping epics that Oscar used to love can’t get arrested by the chorus of film critics and voices online that hand down a verdict before the public gets a crack at it?”
How do you honor Big Hollywood? Step One: Make a good movie.
Critics haven’t passed a harsh verdict on Amelia because it’s a sweeping epic. They’re disappointed because it’s a tame and shallow sweeping epic.
We have an excellent recent movie for very relevant comparison. Scorsese’s The Aviator was a sweeping epic with style, complexity, and excitement. The Aviator has a 77 on metacritic, with seven perfect scores of 100, and only one review out of 41 lower than 60.
The Aviator got a 94 from the BFCA. 11 Oscar nominations, 5 wins. (Should have won 8). The Oscars had a chance to honor Big Hollywood, and they blew it.
All sweeping epics are not created equal. If Amelia is as dull as so many critics are saying, the same Amelia would have been just as dull in 1962. And if Lawrence of Arabia were being released for the first time this Christmas, we wouldn’t be saying the Oscar is George Clooney’s to lose.
“Is this a situation where Hilary’s performance will be praised, but not the movie?”
I don’t think so, Bill W.
Hillary’s performance is not being praised either. Her Amelia Earhart Halloween costume is being praised. Her Madame Tussaud’s pose is being praised. Striking physical similarity is not a performance.
“How do you honor Big Hollywood? Step One: Make a good movie. ”
Disagree. Critics are too harsh on the kinds of films that used to win Oscars, for instance. So we can’t have it both ways. You can’t have films like Out of Africa (which is terrible) presented to the critics, who would likely trash it today given the amount of coverage films get. used to be one or two critics per paper. Think of how many there are now? Critics like movies like There Will Be Blood. It’s rare that any of them embraces a big Hollywood movie – The Dark Knight being one exception, and The Departed. They are in a lose-lose situation. I’m not saying Amelia is the movie that would have won Oscars — I’m saying that it isn’t as simple as “make a good movie” because then you have to ask the question, for whom do you make this movie? For the fanboys? For the target demo? For the critics? For the general public? For Oscars? Cause what I see from where I sit: you can’t satisfy everyone. Danny Boyle did it — jason Reitman did it. But those are fairly few and far between.
And p.s. “Make a good movie” – easier said than done. As William Goldman said, nobody knows anything and what he meant by that is that everyone can have great intentions starting out – the best script, the best director, the best tech crew — but something goes wrong somewhere along the line and it’s down to a handful of people on the internet deciding its fate. It’s not simple. It’s a conundrum.
“The Oscars had a chance to honor Big Hollywood, and they blew it.”
They didn’t blow it; they honored Clint Eastwood’s M$B, which is as Big Hollywood as you can get.
My opinion: The Aviator was a better movie but it was a harder movie; not an across-the-board favorite. I remember a lot of grousing about it at the time — it was not unlike the treatment Benjamin Button got.
I’m 100% certain that neither Swank nor Nair set out to make a bad film. But I do think they set out to make a film that wasn’t challenging.
I’m not familiar with the two books Ron Bass adapted for the screenplay but that’s a good place to start looking if there’s a need to assign blame. The framing device used in the film is tremendously ineffective.
“Disagree. Critics are too harsh on the kinds of films that used to win Oscars, for instance.”
I don´t think so. I believe that all those high anticipated epic pictures hollywood produced during the last 10-15 years were in most parts pretty bad – as simple as that. “The Aviator” was a good one (not great), and good a respectable treatment from both critics and the Academy.
But the last traditional epic academy darling that I liked very much was “The English Patient”.
The didn´t pan “Austrailia” (just one example) because it was meant to win Oscars, but because it wasn´t really good.
“…they honored Clint Eastwood’s M$B, which is as Big Hollywood as you can get.”
sorry, I thought we were talking about Big Hollywood “sweeping epics.” Not grungy-looking low-budget tales of contrived moral quandaries.
p.s. “Make a good movie” – easier said than done.
Sasha, I never said it was easy. I never said it was simple. It requires as much magic as it does talent. The magic just didn’t ignite for Amelia, and — I know everybody hates to hear me harp on this — but the fault was in the script.
I thought the topic of your post was [paraphrased] “Why can’t the big splashy lush extravagant epics get any Oscar love?”
If your definition of “Big Hollywood” is now changing to mean “big names involved,” then what movie ever gets nominated that’s not “Big Hollywood”?
Jason Reitman, Paul Thomas Anderson, Ron Howard, Rob Marshall, James Cameron, Peter Jackson — sorry, aren’t all those guys “Big Hollywood” too then? Don’t they get any Oscar love?
Benjamin Button was a Big Hollywood sweeping epic that got plenty of love. Just because it didn’t win BP doesn’t negate its seven perfect scores of 100 on metacritic or its 12 Oscar nominations.
The difference: David Fincher did the thing that’s not easy. He made a good movie. He made a spectacular movie.
I don’t know how this can sound so much like an argument, when I know we feel the same way about these brilliant “big hollywood” “sweeping epics”.
Mira Nair is the Queen of Big Bollywood, which is probably even harder to achieve than being one of the 80 Kings of Big Hollywood. She just tackled an irredeemable script, that’s all.
Ryan, that really wasn’t the point of my post at all. My point is that the bloggers, critics, fanboys, general public and Oscar voters will never agree on what a good movie is. They never will. Even on our comments board you will get widely varying views on what is and what isn’t a good movie. My point to you was that a good movie is in the eye of the beholder. Some movies are just flat out bad, like Amelia maybe. But come on, I’ve been listening to people complain for ten years about the movies and finally when the Oscars start recognizing the good ones everything goes to shit. Some where there has to be a middle ground.
“The didn´t pan “Austrailia” (just one example) because it was meant to win Oscars, but because it wasn´t really good.”
No, some people thought it was bad. Some people thought it was good. It is an arbitrary thing, this good v. bad much of the time. Audiences are fickle. You never know what is going to be the right movie at the right time…it’s never an easy call to make, especially in the development phase – half the time it feels like great movies are half-accidents, like Casablanca. No one ever set out to make one of the best films of all time – it just turned out that way. Annie Hall, same thing. On the page isn’t always what ends up on the screen. That’s why I don’t read the screenplays first – I fundamentally disagree with the notion that you can tell a good movie from a bad one by reading the script. That’s just my own personal opinion.
“But I do think they set out to make a film that wasn’t challenging. ”
Do all movies have to be challenging? You have to first ask the question, for whom are you making the movie?
I’m of two minds on this. I wanted to look forward to Amelia because there is such a dearth of dramas aimed at adults being made and if this tanks it’ll be one more nail in the coffin. On the other hand, I simply canNOT stand Hiliary Swank. Maybe she deserved an Oscar for Boys Don’t Cry but I couldn’t stand her in Million Dollar Baby (nor do I think the movie should have won). She’s been dreadful in everything else I’ve seen her in and the thought of her having two Oscars when so many more deserving actors don’t have one makes my teeth ache.
Things have gotten pretty bad when a $40m movie starring Cate Blanchett gets put on ice for being too expensive. I remember not that long ago that I would go to the movies every week without fail, now I feel lucky if there is something once a month I really want to see. I hate that ‘they’ push them all out in latter Nov/Dec but at least there will some films worth seeing.
“I fundamentally disagree with the notion that you can tell a good movie from a bad one by reading the script. That’s just my own personal opinion.”
There’s never been a great movie made from a bad script. That’s just my own personal opinion.
If a script bores me, then the movie will too. I know that from dozens and dozens that I’ve read.
I will agree that a great script can often result in a movie that falters. The most recent example that broke my heart was Synecdoche, New York.
But I read enough scripts to know when to be worried about how the movie will turn out. It’s part of the moviegoing experience, for me. I enjoy scripts as much as I enjoy reviews, and with some movies that’s all the there is to enjoy.
Of course people disagree about the quality of movies. There is always a subjective aspect in critizising movies, I agree with you on that.
But if you – for example – write a review about “Memoirs of a Geisha” (that movie fixes the traditional sweeping epic that was anticipated to win a lot of Oscars – before people and academy members finally saw it), you have to make your opinion clear and also put your thoughts across, explain them in a cinematic discours.
A good critic wouldn´t just say “I hate this movie cause it´s a sweeping epic”, he would explain what´s wrong with it.
It remains subjective, still, and we all should trust our own judgement most.
“I fundamentally disagree with the notion that you can tell a good movie from a bad one by reading the script.”
I agree. Especially because film is a visual medium. Who knows how detrimental/helpful the visuals in The Lovely Bones may actually be once the real film rolls around? Who knows how well Saoisre Ronan will play her character off of the page? We can’t tell.
Ryan, that is an impossible thing to know. Impossible. I’ve read many a great script that turned into a bad movie and have read one or two bad scripts that were good movies – the director can overcome a bad script, as can good actors. I learned this in writing class at NYU in the early ’90s. A bad scene read by good actors was a good scene. These things are fluid and changeable – it depends on who’s running the thing.
I’ve read many a great script that turned into a bad movie and have read one or two bad scripts that were good movies
I agree with the first part; I said exactly the same thing. A great script is very often mishandled.
I would like to know the titles of those two bad scripts that turned into good movies.
I stand by my belief: There’s never been a great movie made from a bad script. Never.
Ryan, of course there has. You just would never know because you’ll never have a chance to look at any script in the past because in the past scripts weren’t passed around like they are now before movies are released. You can’t judge the last 80 years by your experience in the last five. You have no way of knowing this. No way of proving it. So it’s like saying “I know there is a God. I just know it. I stand by it.” For one thing, it can’t really be proved because by “bad” you only mean that YOU thought it was bad. Obviously many other people thought it was good enough to green light. How many stories have been written about scripts that people passed on because THEY thought it was bad?
“You just would never know because you’ll never have a chance to look at any script in the past because in the past scripts weren’t passed around like they are now before movies are released.”
Sasha darlin, I’ve been reading scripts since I was 13 or 14. My interest in screenplays started long long before there was even such a thing as PDF files. I have 9 huge vinyl looseleaf binders that hold 4 or 5 scripts each, the original studio copies, mostly from the 70s and 80s, with the titles written in magic marker on the binding. Good college libraries have collections of old scripts.
You know me better than to presume my interest in movies only began when I discovered movie blogs, Sasha.
“Obviously many other people thought it was good enough to green light.”
Worse, the thousands of crap scripts that get green-lit, but that’s not what I’m talking about.
ok, sure, granted, I have not read every script ever written, nor seen every movie. Is that the standard you’re holding me to? So how about if I’m say I believe among the 1000 greatest movies you won’t find a single bad script.
I’m serious about wondering which bad scripts you’ve read that turned into gold onscreen through alchemy. But please, don’t say I’ve “never had a chance to look any script in the past.” You know me better than that. You’ve seen my bookshelves. You can’t seriously think I’ve only read scripts written in the past 5 years, or 10, or 25, or even only the past 50 years.
One of the very first film books I ever bought was Pauline Kael’s Citizen Kane Book, with her 50,000 essay, Raising Kane, crediting Herman Mankiewicz not only as coauthor, but as the “co-auteur” of Citizen Kane. That book contains the script and final cutting continuity for comparison. I bought The Citizen Kane book when I was in 7th grade, Sasha.
I have to admit it’s a pleasure reading the discourse between Sasha and Ryan. Not because it’s discourse but because it’s enlightening. We seem to forget all the components that are required to make a film “a great film”. I happen to agree that the first thing you have to have to accomplish the task is a good script. I also agree since I’ve directed for the stage that if you bring the right people together you can create the illusion of a better project than what you have when it comes to an audience.
I don’t really believe people sign on to a project because they believe it’s going to be a “great movie” Well maybe Producers do, but directors, actors, cinematographers sign on because they read a script and then their imaginations run wild and before they even begin the work the creative process has begun and they now start to take the paint by number picture they have and attempt to create a classic painting through their own visions.
I can’t think of a “great movie” with a really bad script. I can think of “good performances” achieved from a bad script or “good direction” achieved, but an overall “good” film from a bad script? That’s a bit hard to imagine. The Technical aspects are certainly possible to achieve regardless of a script.
Personally I like Swank but Swank really only excels when the project is tailored for her and her persona. True of most but in her case it’s obvious. Amelia should have been perfect for her but like I said over a week ago it looked “boring”. And boring isn’t going to cut it with audiences. That doesn’t mean that you write her off because the film is boring. But it certainly makes her chances more difficult for a nomination.
The first clue is that the new ads are starting to tout her for a “possible” Oscar Nomination. When the “ads’ start using that phrase I immediately go “hmmm someone is trying to drag the audience to the movies”. And they may very well succeed.
But from what little I’ve seen so far the cinematography looks incredible but the rest of it is still a big yawn.
I have to leave but I will say that the scripts you have in your library aren’t necessarily the script that started the production – they are the finished script in most cases, right? Scripts go through how many drafts?
Remember the last scene in The Player when Tim Robbins tries to fob off that bad script to that producer but he turns it into a hit? My point is that you and you alone have your opinion. You will read a script and think it’s terrible. I might read the same script and think it is brilliant. Half the people here will say it’s terrible, a quarter might agree with me that it’s brilliant. So it is, in my opinion, an oversimplification to say “the script was bad so the movie is bad.” I will remember the scripts and let you know later on. I have lived twice as long as you and my memory is not as good as yours.
I’m leaving now.
If the film is shallow and lacks substance then it is a huge pity. Swank seems to be struggling apart from the two Oscar winning roles and Insomnia. Her other films have been so so.
“I will say that the scripts you have in your library aren’t necessarily the script that started the production – they are the finished script in most cases, right?”
No that’s not right. Most of the looseleaf 3-hole-punch scripts I have are strange and odd treasures from off the shelves of real-life Hollywood people. The kind with old construction-paper covers, held together with brass brads when I got them. Some have the multicolor pages of rewrite inserts. Here’s a shot of one of the binders, and a page from a script for The Ninth Configuration. You can see it’s still in the draft/re-write stage.
I picked this script to show (a) how old the film is – 1980, (b) to help explain that I don’t just have an idealized concept of scripts from reading only the classics, (c) to show these yellowed pages and tarnished binder are nearly 10 years old. It’s not a print-out, it’s antique Xerox!
“Remember the last scene in The Player when Tim Robbins tries to fob off that bad script to that producer but he turns it into a hit?”
Cute scene. The Player wasn’t a documentary though. That wasn’t a real script or a real hit. (anyway, are we tallking about “hits” now? I’m talking about great movies.)
I’m not sure how many drafts a script goes through proves your point or mine. But I do know that hardly any of thr scripts I see — even new ones — are final draft. They’re almost all older versions, because the final drafts are harder to get. Most of the final draft scripts I have are published and bound books. Those are not the scripts I read and talk about here.
[oh, and remember you and I both saw two different early drafts for Benjamin Button, and the older version was, like, "uh-oh" and the newer draft was, like, "wow, yay!" But even the newer one was dated a couple of years before start of production. Unless you just deleted both of those when I sent them to you, ha.]
You’re right about another thing:
So yes, I confess, there’s no way to win a challenge called, “show me a great movie with a bad script,” because if the movie is great I will claim I see greatness in the script, and if the script is bad, I’ll say, “Yeah, well that ‘great’ movie is not really all that great.”
Let’s not quarrel in front of the kids.
“Mira Nair is the Queen of Big Bollywood, which is probably even harder to achieve than being one of the 80 Kings of Big Hollywood.”
Ryan, how I wish that were true. Maybe then we can have some good movies winning Indian Oscars. The concept of having a script is still for a large part non-existent in Bollywood. But the dialogue writers are very well respected there.
everyone knew this would suck, sasha was just drinking the year of the woman koolaid
I think we’d all feel more comfortable with your argument Sasha if we knew the examples you spoke of regarding bad scripts into good films.
Although I want to believe a bad script can turn into a great film I don’t have any examples myself.
I’ll find one!
Hauuhauhhuahuhuahuauh!!!!
How I miss Diane Keaton, a great actress.
“The Aviator got a 94 from the BFCA. 11 Oscar nominations, 5 wins. (Should have won 8). The Oscars had a chance to honor Big Hollywood, and they blew it.”
Ryan Adams, wise lines.
I love you, man!
(I hope you include DiCaprio´s victory as Hughes.)
“sasha was just drinking the year of the woman koolaid”
Not at all, allen. Sasha was more hopeful, because we all know better than to judge a movie by its trailer. But there are no shortage of women filmmakers this year. We don’t have to drink any Kool-Aid to find enough women to fill our dance card.
If we start talking about Nora Ephon or Nancy Meyers for Best Director, call an ambulance, it’s time to get the Double Double Cherry pumped from our stomachs.
But if a director of Mira’s Nair’s stature is not worth the benefit of the doubt and cause for optimism, then we might as well not write about any director at all until February.
This is The Golden Age all over again.
I think people are just sick and tired of cookie cutter, conventionally told biopics.
The negative reviews seem to reflect that.
to weigh in on scripts…
titanic is an AWFUL script that turned out to be a classic (whether you love it or not, it IS a classic. end of arguement there). gladiator also has an awful script.
in the end, the script can seem strong and interesting but sometimes it just doesn’t work. as an actor and writer, i’ve seen it all. one of my favourite scripts that i wrote wasd made into a short that unfortunately sucked basically because of the choices the director made.
“Is this a situation where Hilary’s performance will be praised, but not the movie?”
Isn’t Meryl Streep going threw the same thing with Julia & Julia?. I’m thinking people will just be looking at the performances for Best Actress this year.
“Striking physical similarity is not a performance”
Tell that to Jon Voight who got the nod for Ali for playing dress up.
I wouldn’t say Ebert thought the movie sucked, he still gave it 3/4 stars, which is a “thumb’s up” I believe. I like how he says Swank doesn’t fit in many roles, which I completely agree with. I don’t dislike her though.
JR, Julie and Julia certainly has better reviews as a film than Amelia. It’s just that it is overshadowed by a wonderful Streep performance.
How about Bridges of Madison County? I wouldn’t count this as a great movie – merely a good one – and I haven’t read the script but I know the book was awful. Yet Streep and Eastwood made it into something special.
RIP Amelia
to weigh in on scripts…
titanic is an AWFUL script that turned out to be a classic (whether you love it or not, it IS a classic. end of arguement there).
Really? I actually think that aside from dialogue, Titanic actually did deserve to be nominated for Best Original Screenplay. Yes, some of the dialogue was cringe inducing and laughable, but that the movie really works in spite of that has to do with the rest of the screenplay too. It might be a cliche story, but it works, and I don’t think it would have been that successful had it not for the basic story first no matter how great it looked or how good the chemistry of the leads was.
For instance, while I liked both Leo and Kate in the movie, I always felt like they both had best friend type of chemistry not really passionate chemistry; although obviously many other girls that were around my age than felt much differently. Of course, outside of them, the acting really didn’t stand out, at least not in a positive way. Kathy Bates and Victor Garber did fine especially the latter, but Billy Zane needed a mustache to twirl because of how over the top he was and the other actors didn’t really stand out. SO I don’t think that the acting really saved the screenplay all that much if the screenplay was that bad in the first play. Again Kate and Leo make a great team, but if they were stuck with a truly bad screenplay, I don’t think they could even have saved it.
Further, just because the special effects were good, I don’t think it would have been that successful because there’s plenty of films that have amazing special effects but don’t wind up being that popular. Sure the Transformers or what not may have a great opening weekend and of course may tons of money, but I think that they’re pretty disposable because their stories are so forgettable and mostly dumb. On the other if you look at movies like Titanic and even The Dark Knight, whose screenplay also had some problems imo, there’s still a big hook that makes it memorable and draws all kinds of viewers to it over and over again.
gladiator also has an awful script.
in the end, the script can seem strong and interesting but sometimes it just doesn’t work. as an actor and writer, i’ve seen it all. one of my favourite scripts that i wrote wasd made into a short that unfortunately sucked basically because of the choices the director made.
I actually think Gladiator is a bad movie because of the screenplay
. It’s certainly helped a lot by its performances, but even with many pretty great to good performances, I still think of it as a mediocre movie that got lucky.
So I agree with Ryan that while certain elements of a film like great acting, direction, etc., can help elevate a poor screenplay, if the screenplay is awful, the final product will still be awful as a whole too. Different strokes for different folks I guess though.
“…aside from dialogue, Titanic actually did deserve to be nominated for Best Original Screenplay.”
A Night to Remember was on Turner Classic Movies a couple of nights ago. First time I’d ever seen it, I was expecting a stinker. Instead I found out it was pretty awesome. Screenwriter? Eric Ambler, pioneer author of some of the very first espionage novels.
oh, and cinematography by Geoffrey Unsworth — who later shot 2001: A Space Odyssey, and won an Oscar for Cabaret.
Just when we thought it couldn’t get any worse, now Amelia is having a bad hair day.
Cruel Fate.
a good example is lost in translation.. s. coppola is a pretty weak writer, but the ambiance, romance, and performances made the movie into something great.
I’m going to shut up soon, but are we saying that the screenplay for Lost in Translation was bad enough to win the Writer’s Guild Award and Oscar for Best Original Screenplay?
Well, another one bites the dust. Time to move on. Better luck next time, you guys.
Ryan, Lost in Translation didn’t win the WGA and Oscar because someone sat around reading the screenplay and thought it was good – it was a runner-up prize for their liking the movie. I mean seriously, what writing? There was no writing.
Wow, based on 22 reviews on MC so far, it has a 41 with a solitary score above 80.
Below Burning Plain, Stoning of Soraya M, Antichrist of mediocrely received limited films with somewhat buzzed lead actresses.
Below Orphan, Cirque du Freak, Halloween 2, The Time Traveler’s Wife, Jennifer’s Body, The Proposal, My Sister’s Keeper of current wide releases. Well, gosh.
I didn’t think it would be received this badly. However, looks like Swank is down; whoo. And mitigating circumstances don’t look to push her up, i.e. Winslet playing a Nazi and if she lost she’d have tied for most losses w/o winning, Blanchett arguably being robbed the first time around as Elizabeth. Opposite in fact.
“Strand, Believed to Be Earhart’s Lost Lock, Is Only a Thread”
Amelia, believed to be an Oscar lock, is now a really long thread.
Can’t say I’m suprised. Vanity Fair was a mess. It looked great and there was some nice perfs, but structurally it’s all over the place. Mira Nair just isn’t a good storyteller.
Now we’re really prepared to say that The WGA and the screenwriter branch of AMPAS “don’t sit around reading screenplays”? That they not only nominate movies with no regard for the writing whatsoever — but they also choose those screenplays with complete lack of writing as the winner, the best script if the year, better than any other screenplay by actual writers who supposedly dedicate their entire lives to writing?
Then why do we ever pay attention to what the WGA does, and why do we even care which movies win Oscars? For anything.
I do care, and I do know that movies and filmmakers often win awards for reasons other than merit. That’s business as usual.
But I think a multiple award-winning screenplay like Lost in Translation is a less than ideal example to brandish as a “gotcha!” example of a bad script.
While we’re stirring this up again, would somebody like to find a review of Amelia that doesn’t outright mock the screenplay and trite dialogue?
====
20 – Manola Dargis, NYT – “It’s hard to imagine anyone, other than satirists, doing anything with the puerile, sometimes risible dialogue. The screenwriters, Ron Bass and Anna Hamilton Phelan, give Earhart a voice-over even as they forget her voice.”
20 – Joe Morganstern, WSJ – “During one of those adventures, a solo flight across the North Atlantic, she gushes, voice-over, “It was a night of stars, of tropic loveliness”; the vagabond script can’t even keep its climate zones straight. Amelia’s final flight provides the only source of drama—of quasidrama, since the outcome is never in doubt—but it’s chopped up into short episodes and intercut, intrusively, with the episodic evolution of her public and personal life.”
25 – Peter Travers, Rolling Stone – The god-awful script by Ron Bass (Rain Man) and Anna Hamilton Phelan (Gorillas in the Mist) is assaultive in its insistence that “dreams have no boundaries” and other sentiments that even Hallmark would reject as too fucking much. “Who wants a life imprisoned in safety?” Amelia asks in a voice-over. And you want to shout, “This movie does, honey.” There’s not a real or spontaneous minute in it.
25 – Sam Adams, Onion A.V. – “the filmmakers could have saved time and money by merely cribbing from Earhart’s Wikipedia page, since the movie never moves beyond the superficial facts of her life. Screenwriters Ron Bass and Anna Hamilton Phelan skim through Earhart’s history like a college student cramming for a test… it’s an object lesson in the follies of the conventional biopic, which puts mindless recapitulation of historical data above analysis or insight. The messy fascination of life is replaced by a schematic series of setups and payoffs.”
40 – Betsy Sharkey, LA Times – “Many of the historic details land on the screen in the form of newspaper headlines and newsreel shorts, a device instead of plot and dialogue, which only serves to underscore the weakness of the script by Ron Bass and Anna Hamilton Phelan.”
Does anyone think that sort of dialogue and structure is not immediately apparent on the page?
“Amelia, believed to be an Oscar lock, is now a really long thread.”
AWESOMENESS.
Listen, I hate to keep ragging on this movie so much, but I implore you both (Ryan and Sasha, I mean) to get a look at Amelia. I dare you to like this film. I dare you to not once check the time while watching it, or not to eye all possible exits out of whatever room you’re watching it in, or be emotionally engaged with any part of the film with the exception of the final 10-15 minutes. I get the whole “its subjective” argument and surely no one on this thread is stupid enough to think that their opinion is gospel (well, I hope not), but I honestly cannot fathom any human being walking out of “Amelia” genuinely satisfied. The fact that this movie even has a 30% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes is MIND BOGGLING. The 6 percent it was standing on for about a day seems much more accurate. There’s only one movie this year I’ve seen that is worse than this. Its called “Royal Kill” and there’s really nothing worse than that movie. So when I say “its bad”, I mean it in the way that I genuinely believe any thinking person would have to agree its bad, the same way we all basically agree that laughter is good and murder is wrong.
Sure, there will be people who are dead set on liking the movie and nothing, not even the quality of the film itself, will change their minds. But, then again, there are folks right here on the internet who enjoy eating feces and mutilating themselves as well.
Oh, by the way, I have a feeling that Roger Ebert’s three star review of the film is based on the fact that he truly enjoyed the last 15 minutes of the movie and he left the theater having forgotten about the hour and a half that preceded it, cause, y’know, he’s old and stuff. Plus he seems to be somewhat of an Earhart buff, and that seems to color his opinion. I have to believe all of this though, because I want to continue to respect him.
Full Disclosure: I wasn’t living in the US in 2003 and I didn’t keep up with news or movie gossip from The States at all while I was an expat. I was vaguely aware that there was some sort of grumbling about the screenplay for Lost in Translation at the time, but it was always my impression that the controversy revolved around wondering whether or not Daddy Coppola helped give an extra touch of finesse to the script. So I went searching just now to see if there’s something else I ought to know.
Do some people have a problem with the screenplay for Lost in Translation because it’s not a full 120 pages and doesn’t adhere to the formulaic rules of Robert McKee? Is the complaint that the script for Lost in Translation is not wordy enough?
With Google guiding my blind groping, I ran across these thoughts from Ann Hornaday in the Washington Post (July 12, 2009):
oh, and the other effect of me living overseas for a long time is that Lost in Translation touched me really deeply and felt more real and immediate than any other movie I saw that year. (I didn’t catch up to ‘In America’ for a couple of years.)
So what was the favorite for Best Original Screenplay in this neighborhood in 2003? Can I guess? Finding Nemo, right? That’s a fine script, but is an adorable fish adventure somehow more substantial than Lost in Translation?
I am not going to argue this anymore. I am tapped out, as they say. I’ve said what I feel is important to say – my mind won’t be changed, neither will yours so let’s call it a day, eh? I’m going to.
The only knock I heard against Sofia’s screenplay was that people assumed Bill Murray had improvised much of his dialogue, as it sounded so natural and Murray-esque. According to Sofia, that’s not true – she wrote the dialogue out in detail, with Murray in her mind to play the part.
I think it’s a brilliant piece of writing. However, I do realize Sasha is probably right that they gave Sofia the screenplay Oscar as a consolation prize because she wasn’t winning picture or director. That doesn’t invalidate the writing, though.
off topic, with Amelia officialy slaughtered, does this mean fox searchlight is actually out of the race this year? or are they gonna push the fantastic mr fox into a best pic nod, or maybe even 500 days of summer? itll be strange without them in the race
It’s good news for (500) Days of Summer’s FYC budget allotment, I think, Bill. And let’s not forget that Big Daddy FOX still has Avatar.
I just plain and simple thought the movie fell flat and was exremely boring. Hilary ” looks ” like Amelia but it’s a pretty flat performance. Zip chemistry between her and Gere as well. This is exactly the perfect example what you might have seen had another filmmaker had made the film. There are a couple different ways you could have taken the story. I’d be very surprised if Swank get’s a Oscar nod for this role. I actually had walk outs in my theater, and more than a few times I was daydreaming and I hardly ever do that.
I decided to look at studios to see who’s in the best shape:
Columbia/Sony: An Education; outside chances A Prophet & White Ribbon; Broken Embraces, Coco Before Chanel, Last Station & Julie & Julia for mostly Lead Actress; Cloudy for animated
Weinstein: Nine, A Single Man; Basterds as outside shot, Road for acting
Paramount: Lovely Bones & Up in the Air; outside chance Star Trek
Disney: Up; if there’s 5 animated nominees, a good chance at having the majority of them
Others: Summit/Locker, Lionsgate/Precious, Warner/Invictus, Apparition/Bright Star, Focus/Serious Man, Fox/Avatar
Gosh, Columbia/Sony are really going to have to decide who they want to push for Actress…For financial support this year they have Mall Cop, Angels & Demons, Julie & Julia, District 9, Cloudy, Zombieland.
@ Sasha,
I strongly disagree about the Lost In Translation script. It was a very good script. And a script isn’t about dialogue. Not in the first place. It’s about the story it tells, the way it tells it. In the script Sofia Coppola creates a wonderfully detailed world, surrounded by two distinct individuals you care about. Her characters are (at the same time) predictable archetypes, but turn out to be something much more and are defined in a way of communication that makes the whole thing look very lyrical and honest and intimate. I think that the best achievement is the simplicity and mood she creates. Once again, the script is not in the words.
Once again … about this 10 Best Picture nominees thing … I wish wish wish they had just increased categories to 6 nominees instead of 5.
lol Now try to scramble to find 6 Best Actress candidates. Hilary would have no problem this year.
I really do admire Sofia Coppola and I loved her work in The Virgin Suicides and Marie Antoinette (which was wildly misunderstood in my opinion), but I just couldn’t, COULDN’T like Lost in Translation. The movie absolutely bored me to tears–at the time I saw it, I couldn’t understand why I didn’t like it since it received so much praise…I just find it so dull and way, way too contemplative….and let’s be honest, this was Scarlett Johansson’s best performance simply because she rarely opened her mouth and was required to walk around and look confused and depressed.
On another note, about Amelia, I wouldn’t count out Hilary Swank just yet. This totally reminds me of the situation 2 years ago at this exact same time, where Elizabeth: The Golden Age BOMBED, and everyone thought Cate Blanchett was out until she randomly started popping up again in the precursors. Don’t count out perennial Oscar favorites like Blanchett and Hilary Swank, cause they get nominated by default! (and there were other strong female performances in 2007. Jolie’s A Mighty Heart & Keira Knightley in Atonement come to mind)
@ Aaron,
it’s different, because Blanchett was actually getting some good ink for her performance in Elizabeth: The Golden Age. I just went through the reviews and there is the same talk: “commands the screen”, “can do no wrong and does none here, even though the film around her…”, “Blanchett miraculously gives a good performance, even when saddled with lines like this one” and of course Variety wrote that the sole pleasure was watching Blanchett.
And let’s not forget that the guilt factor worked in Cate’s favor. Every Oscar voter knew that she should have won for Elizabeth in 1998 and it was a make-up vote for a performance that wasn’t actually bad.
And what does Swank have? Nothing. She has the opposite. She won too much and everyone thinks she won for the two good performances in her career and that she simply isn’t good in most of what she does. Even Ebert doesn’t praise her performance. He just states she simply works.
Amelia could have been better if the director added some Bollywood singing and dancing scenes in it.
Ryan, are you now going to start your own Oscar blog soon because of screenplay irreconciliable differences with Sasha?
Nikki`s numbers are in and Amelia bombed with $1.3 mio Friday, 11th spot opening. Here are the estimates:
1. Paranormal Activity (Par) Week 5 [1,945 Runs] $7.5M Fri, Est Wkd $21M
2. Saw VI (LG) NEW [3,036] $7M Fri, Est Wkd $18M
3. Wild Things (WB) Week 2 [3,735] $4.4M Fri (-63%), Est Wkd $13M
4. Law Abiding (Over) Week 2 [2,890] $4.2M Fri (-45%), Est Wkd $12.5M
5. Couples Retreat (Uni) Week 3 [3,074] $3.7M Fri, Est Wkd $11.5M
6. Vampire’s Assistant (Relativity/Uni) NEW [2,754] $2.3M Fri, Est Wkd $6.8M
7. The Stepfather (Sony) Week 2 [2,734] $2.1M Fri, Est Wkd $6.2M
8. Astro Boy (Imagi/Summit) NEW [3,014] $2M Fri, Est Wkd $6.2M
9. Cloudy/Meatballs (Sony) Week 6 [2,741] $1.5M Fri, Est Wkd $5.5M
10. Zombieland (Sony) Week 4 [2,447] $1.3M Fri, Est Wkd $4.5M
11. Amelia (Fox Searchlight] NEW [818] $1.3M Fri, Est Wkd $4M
Source: http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/#
hahaha, bye-bye, Saw! This is terrible number for the franchise. Glad PA killed it.
Just saw the film and I thought Ms. Swank was fantastic!
As always, Hilary is fearless and that gumption may very well be enough to net her a third Best Actress nom.
Flat, dry and boring. you really thought that was a fantastic performance ? Wow…
I have to admit I also hated “Lost in Translation”. I tried more times than I can count to watch it and just gave up. Personal taste I guess. But I also have to admit I enjoyed “Marie Antoinette”. I do hate the idea of taking an historical premise and dousing it with pop or techno music to drag in audiences. Just make a good film instead of littering it with crap.
Leave a reply
All comments should respect the Awards Daily House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please let us know, quoting the comment in question.