'Descendants' wins the USC Scripter Award
Can it keep the screenplay love going tomorrow at the WGA Awards?
George Clooney in "The Descendants"
Are you a fan of In Contention?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
The 24th annual USC Libraries Scripter Awards were held this evening just south of downtown at the Doheny Library on the USC campus. For the first time in a while, I had to miss the show (which is always a classy affair and, as a former USC grad student, always a bit odd, ordering a vodka tonic at the counter where I used to check out books for thesis and term paper purposes).
Anyway, the goal of the honor is to recognize adaptation of the written word. Once upon a time that was limited to literature, but in recent years it has expanded to include former screenplays (allowing for remakes to be recognized) and comic books.
This year, the big winner, unsurprisingly, was "The Descendants." Screenwriters Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon and Jim Rash were awarded alongside author Kaui Hart Hemmings. The film won the honor just moments after it was announced as this year's ACE Eddie winner for dramas.
The other nominees were "A Dangerous Method," "Jane Eyre," "Moneyball" and "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy." I think one of the latter two would have been much more handsome and thoughtful recipients since they don't particularly (well, at all) represent a cut-and-paste by any sretch. "Moneyball" was a book no one thought could be adapted for the screen, and yet screenwriters Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian (two of the top writers in the business) tackled Stan Chervin's pre-existing adaptation and it became one of the most dense, thematically rich films of the year.
Related
-
'Tinker, Tailor,' 'Jane Eyre' nominated for USC Scripter Award
'The Descendants,' 'Moneyball' also in the mix, 'The Help,' 'Dragon Tattoo' o...
"Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy," meanwhile, whittled a vast volume that was barely squeezed into a longer mini-series once upon a time and made it flow beautifully within a two-hour frame. How you can argue against these two adaptations being better works on the page than "The Descendants" is beyond me, yet Payne's film is nevertheless looking good for an Oscar win (and even better if it takes the WGA prize tomorrow night).
Most of the nominees this year were former finalists. Zaillian is actually a three-time winner for "Awakenings," "Schindler's List" and "A Civil Action," and he also won the inaugural Literary Achievement Award in 2008. Sorkin won last year for "The Social Network," while "Tinker" author John le Carré was up for the prize for the adaptation of his book "The Constant Gardener" in 2005. Finally, "A Dangerous Method" screenwriter Christopher Hampton was up for "Carrington" in 1996.
This marks Payne's first Scripter win. In 2003 he was a finalist for "About Schmidt" but lost to "The Hours." In 2005, he was up for "Sideways" but lost to "Million Dollar Baby." He won the Oscar that year, though.
Recent recipients of the award have included "Up in the Air," "Slumdog Millionaire," "No Country for Old Men," "Children of Men," "Capote" and "Million Dollar Baby." Only eight of the 23 previous Scripter winners went on to win the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay, but it's becoming more common as of late.
Remember to keep track of all the ups and downs of the 2011-2012 film awards season via The Circuit.
For year-round entertainment news and awards season commentary follow @kristapley on Twitter.
Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!
Related Events
-
movies -
movies
Trending Now on HitFix Boards
| Topic | Started By | Latest Post | Replies |
|---|---|---|---|
| DarylRichardson |
3 months ago
|
1
|
|
| gregel |
7 months ago
|
9
|
|
| Discuss Oscars on HitFix Message Boards » | |||
2012-2013 OSCAR PREDICTIONS
Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Original Screenplay
Best Cinematography
Best Costume Design
Best Film Editing
Best Makeup And Hairstyling
Best Original Score
Best Original Song
Best Production Design
Best Sound Editing
Best Sound Mixing
Best Visual Effects
Best Animated Feature Film
Best Documentary Feature
Best Foreign Language Film
Latest Posts
-
The 'Drunken Master' filmmaker's spin goes into production next yearThursday, May 16, 2013
-
Ari Folman's 'Waltz With Bashir' follow-up opens Directors' Fortnight at CannesThursday, May 16, 2013
-
The actress's directorial debut goes on sale at the Cannes Film Market this weekThursday, May 16, 2013
-
Un Certain Regard opener is worthy of a Competition slotThursday, May 16, 2013
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login SignupJLPatt
February 19, 2012 at 2:07AM EST Reply to CommentI don't know, maybe it's a little bit surprising it beat "Moneyball." Although they probably didn't want to give Sorkin a win two years in a row. "The Descendants" is a good alternative.
Academy Award snubee Elizabeth Olsen
February 19, 2012 at 2:09AM EST Reply to CommentI just wish they wouldn't do what every other freaking awards ceremony does...vote for the Oscar winner. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was by far the most literary and dense of the adaptations and deserved to be recognized. This quirky dramedys just haven't done anything for me since Little Miss Sunshine. They work better, I think, if they are original and not adaptations.
The years 2005 (Capote), 2006 (Children of Men) and 2007 (No Country for Old Men) represent the pinnacle of this award, so it cannot be any better than those years if this is the type of film they decide to honor. Perhaps they were too Oscar-conscious to notice the random voice-over that falls off and never really picks back up.
JLPatt The problem with "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" is that it's written far more confusingly than it had any need to be. Just because it's "dense" and "literary" doesn't make it the best.
February 19, 2012 at 2:16AM ESTKristopher Tapley It's not that confusing.
February 19, 2012 at 2:25AM ESTKristopher Tapley By which I mean, it's not like all the pieces aren't there. It might take a couple viewings to soak it all in, but there's nothing wrong with that. It's expert writing.
February 19, 2012 at 2:25AM ESTACADEMY AWARD SNUBEE ELIZABETH OLSEN I guess we have to be happy that the BAFTA woke up and picked the right screenplay. I liked that the film took its time to unwind and didn't just shove a bunch of random, obscure scenes at you in order to rush you out. I paid $9 dollars goddamnit -- I want my money's worth. The 2 hours here appeared to take 4...but boy, were they a meaty and very rewarding couple of hours!
February 19, 2012 at 5:14AM ESTGuy Lodge JLPatt: Be careful of saying "the problem with it" when you mean "my problem with it." I appreciate that many viewers found it hard to follow, but many viewers didn't -- and not just ones already familiar with the source material. Everyone absorbs narrative differently.
February 19, 2012 at 2:18PM ESTred_wine I would say there is some merit in the criticism that Tinker Tailor is more confusing than it needs to be. I more or less got it all the first time around (I was completely unfamiliar with the material) and the second time had immense admiration for the skill with which it was written and constructed. But with the aftertaste that it was kinda "too clever by half", if the intention was to confound the viewer, they completely succeeded. But something of the narrative elegance and unified cohesion might have been lost amid the tangle of the plot.
February 19, 2012 at 4:45PM ESTStill its a coolly cerebral exercise as Guy says and flatters the intelligence. A very good movie too and I love it. With some reservations.
Isaac I actually had the same problem with it the first time around, I found it way too confusing, but I decided not to hold it against the film because I saw it under easily distracting circumstances (wrong film for that!). The second time, I sat down to watch it and while I was mostly lost in the first hour of the film, in the second hour I was able to slowly put all the pieces together and I ended up admiring the film all the more for it. I do believe it would have made for a more handsome winner, this or Moneyball. I like the Descendants just fine, but I have several problems with it and most of them are from a writing standpoint (interesting, because I love Sideways and About Schmidt)...
February 19, 2012 at 6:38PM ESTDennis
February 19, 2012 at 4:23AM EST Reply to CommentI'm a bit surprised this won tonight, but I guess it does have a better chance at winning the Oscar than Moneyball simply because it has more "heart" (I think of Precious winning over Up in the Air... even though In the Loop should have taken it!).
Voland
February 19, 2012 at 8:01AM EST Reply to CommentI didn' like The Desencant's screenplay, but maybe it shouldn't be a suprise, that Payne is rewarded for one of his lesser works.
JJ1
February 19, 2012 at 9:13AM EST Reply to CommentWhenever The Descendants wins anything it hurts my heart (over-the-top, I know). No, seriously ... I don't know what to do with this category. I still "feel" like Moneyball wins. It feels like it has more heat, to me. It has more nominations than The Descendants. Sorkin is popular; though, perhaps not as much as Payne. But I feel like The Descendants is Up in the Air all over again (and the fact that Clooney was attached to both has nothing to do with it; just that both films lost steam). And yet, The Descendants just won here, and the ACE. Oscar night will be very interesteeeeng.
Brock Landers
February 19, 2012 at 11:52AM EST Reply to CommentThe screenplay for Tinker is pretty terrible. Either that or the movie was completely botched in the editing room. It's cut way too fucking fast. The thing I was looking forward to most going into this movie was soaking in the atmosphere of this world and lingering in these rooms filled with paranoia, lies and deceit, but we never get a chance to do this because it's all about jumping from one character to the next without an ounce of appreciation for the work that went into making the film.
Most overrated film of the year, easily, and I fucking hate to use that word.
JJ1 I agree that: for as impeccably crafted as TTSS is (cin, art direction, costumes), and as well-acted as it is ... to jam everything in to the 2 hour running time did it a disservice, for me. Soooo many characters. So much talking. And all that at the expense of the, as Brock put it, smoky atmosphere and sense of paranoia. I felt like each scene needed more breathing room to absorb info/characterizations.
February 19, 2012 at 12:01PM ESTBrock Landers Finally, someone on the same page as me. I agree, the craft is impeccable and the acting very good, but it's just cut way too fast. The movie could have been another 20 minutes longer and would have been a lot better for it.
February 19, 2012 at 12:17PM ESTFrom what I gather, Alfredson takes the Eastwood approach when it comes to directing films. The thing is, Eastwood makes very stripped down and raw films for the most part. This wasn't that kind of film and probably would have been better under a director like Fincher or something.
Kristopher Tapley How is it "cut way too fast?" I feel like if you didn't know it was from a denser work you wouldn't even have that criticism. It moves along swiftly. Nothing wrong with that.
February 19, 2012 at 1:47PM ESTBrock Landers I think JJ1 and I have explained ourselves pretty clearly. After watching the trailer I was expecting to be absorbed in the brown walls, pipe smoke, lies, deceit and paranoia, but it just kind of jumps from one scene to the next without letting us (or at least me) soak in the atmosphere. Because it does this, everything feels kind of flat. I never felt the paranoia, and we're never in one scene long enough for any amount of tension to rise or to soak in the atmosphere.
February 19, 2012 at 2:10PM ESTAlso, it's blatantly obvious who the mole is within the first 15 or so minutes. I know that isn't the "point" of the movie, but if you're not going to create any tension or a sense of paranoia, and you're not going to let us soak in the atmosphere that your crew has worked so incredibly hard to create, at least make the plot a little less obvious...
Kristopher Tapley You've said there were "way too many characters" and "way too much talking" and "jumping from one character to the next." That's not "clear" to me. That's just relaying the facts of an ensemble piece.
February 19, 2012 at 2:58PM ESTEverything you say you were "expecting" to do, I did. I'm sorry you didn't. I can understand feeling it was dense but I certainly don't get a criticism that it's somehow impatient with its narrative.
And by the way, with Tinker, who the mole is isn't "the thing." It's not a mystery movie. It's a movie about atmosphere, and personally, I think it's rich with it.
Kristopher Tapley (And I know you said the mole isn't the "point," but it still seemed to bear repeating.)
February 19, 2012 at 2:59PM ESTBrock Landers "You've said there were "way too many characters" and "way too much talking" and "jumping from one character to the next." That's not "clear" to me. That's just relaying the facts of an ensemble piece."
February 19, 2012 at 3:21PM ESTWell obviously those are attributes of ensemble pieces, but it doesn't mean that the filmmakers did this well. It jumps from one character to the next without letting us soak in this atmosphere. Instead of having a conversation with a bunch of spies in an office and then cutting away after the last word is spoken, let the camera fucking linger for a moment. This is what happens when you have a director directing a movie about atmosphere who only does one or two takes.
Something like Traffic is an example of jumping around while at the same time letting the audience soak in the world it is depicting.
"Everything you say you were "expecting" to do, I did. I'm sorry you didn't. I can understand feeling it was dense but I certainly don't get a criticism that it's somehow impatient with its narrative."
I think it was impatient with its narrative. I never felt like I got to spend enough time with any of the characters. It moves along and we don't really get to know them or feel the paranoia they feel. Some may say, "That's the point," but I feel like that's a lazy argument.
"And by the way, with Tinker, who the mole is isn't "the thing." It's not a mystery movie. It's a movie about atmosphere, and personally, I think it's rich with it."
This is exactly what I said. If you read what I said again, you would see that I thought that because the movie didn't let us soak in this atmosphere, the least it could do was make the plot a little less obvious. You think it was rich in atmosphere, but I disagree entirely. I think on a surface level there is atmosphere, but we are never in one scene long enough to really soak in this atmosphere.
Brock Landers "(And I know you said the mole isn't the "point," but it still seemed to bear repeating.)"
February 19, 2012 at 3:22PM ESTIgnore the last bit in my previous comment. I posted it after you had posted this.
Kristopher Tapley I think the camera lingers plenty. And I think we simply saw two different films, and/or your hindsight from being confused seems to have led you to believe that the film has no patience with its narrative.
February 19, 2012 at 5:02PM ESTBrock Landers I guess we saw two different films because confusion was not an issue for me. In fact, it plays it so straight that it's hard to understand where the confusion complaint is coming from.
February 19, 2012 at 5:18PM ESTWhen I was watching it, I wasn't saying, "Slow down, I can't keep up." I was saying, "Slow down and let me see the work that you, the crew and the actors have put into the movie."
red_wine "Slow down and let me see the work that you, the crew and the actors have put into the movie."
February 19, 2012 at 5:31PM ESTBrock Landers: I have the best recommendation for you that will give you exactly what you want -- the films of Bela Tarr. :D :D :D :D :D
Brock Landers Haha, I actually am a Bela Tarr fan. There's a guy who can create an atmosphere and really let you live in it.
February 19, 2012 at 5:43PM ESTKristopher Tapley Ok, then you weren't confused. You just wanted a five-hour movie.
February 19, 2012 at 6:27PM ESTIn two hours, with this story, this film was the best you'll get.