comment #1

Mike Schaefer says ...

Borat is adapted from... what? I thought most of it was "new", even if it was based on a character he did on TV.

comment #2

JD says ...

I think Borat is a fair nomination, as the character is a creation that's been very carefully designed and, while most of the people around him are reacting spontaneously, Borat's statements and action are brainstormed in advance (he has writers). Anyway, I think these nominations are pretty good, though I'll never understand the widespread enthusiasm for Babel, Stranger Than Fiction or The Devil Wears Prada.

comment #3

ArchiveGuy says ...

Well, "Groundhog Day" also "didn't attempt to figure out, much less explain, the metaphysical system of the movie", so by your standards, that would have precluded it from getting listed on the National Film Registry, right?

"Stranger" is no way in the same league, of course, but just because it hits the ground running on its premise without spoon-feeding you notes from Basil Exposition doesn't mean it doesn't "make sense".

comment #4

Craig Kennedy says ...

Yeah! Stranger than Fiction! Get bent Mr. Cranky Blog man!

comment #5

Craig Kennedy says ...

Sorry to keep bringing this up, but I continue to be as mystified by the need to explain the metaphysical underpinnings of what amounts to a slightly twisted but pretty light romantic comedy as I am by those who need explanation for the infertility angle of Children of Men.

It wasn't funny. Got it. You expected it to be some kind of important Oscar bait type movie and you were wrong. Check. You didn't like it. Swell. You didn't understand it? Ridiculous.

comment #6

Colin says ...

It's really a shame that the mediocre The Devil Wears Prada is getting a ton of praise while the only truly superlative aspect of it (in my mind) -- Emily Blunt's performance -- is largely being ignored.

I especially thought that the screenplay for Prada was pretty rote (and my wife who read the book said it really took the meat out of it). On the other hand, I thought that the screenplay for Notes on a Scandal was terrific. I think switching Prada with Notes (or either of this year's magician movies) would make the adpated nominations look a lot better.

comment #7

ROTC says ...

Whether or not Borat at any point made use of an actual screenplay, I agree with Mike that it's nonsense to consider it an adapted one. If a screenplay is considered an adaptation simply because the character already existed elsewhere, then every biopic - e.g., The Queen - should likewise have to be considered an adaptation.

comment #8

Colin says ...

Of course, this is the same guild that nominated Before Sunset for Best Adapated Screenplay.

comment #9

RoyBatty says ...

ArchiveGuy and cjKennedy - couldn't have said it better myself.

Of all the things to fault STRANGER THAN PARADISE for, Zack Helm's smart choice to avoid the pitfall most newbie fantasy and Sci-Fi writers make of explaining too much is not one of them. Like other good films that use far-fetched premises, PARADISE simply presents the outlandish notion and takes things from there.

Considering Wells' background, he would be on far firmer ground nitpicking about Queen Latifah's character's job.

comment #10

JD says ...

To me, the problem with STF isn't its failure to offer background/explanation for its metaphysical situation, the problem is the fact that every character in the film is irritating and there's no effort to gracefully hint at some broader significance. Film like The Truman Show and Groundhog Day offer a sense of how a high concept premise like this can have complex and insightful metaphorical resonance. People may say, well, it's just a light comedy, but if that's true, it's straining way too hard to achieve an effect that dozens of other comedies achieve in a manner that seems effortless by comparison.

comment #11

christian says ...

saying the script for THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA had "meat taken out of it" is like saying the slim book was the flavor inside the middle of a life saver....

comment #12

Colin says ...

Slim? It's 360 pages. That's basically the same # of pages as Little Children and considerably longer than Thank You for Smoking.

comment #13

Joshua Mooney says ...

"Stranger Than Fiction" promised so much, with its title alone! What a tremendous disappointment. ArchiveGuy is quite right about "Groundhog Day" and its lack of explaining the metaphysical, BUT Jeff has a point as well, since the metaphysical and meta-fiction are NOT the same animal, when it comes down to it. The latter rather demands an explanation. "Stranger" made me think of the far-superior Resnais film "Providence."

comment #14

Craig Kennedy says ...

Joshua, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree that the metaphysics demanded explanation. The only two questions I needed answered were "How does he stay alive?" and "How does he get the girl?".

Just to show I'm not being overly defensive about a film I have a blind affection for, RoyBatty's final comment about Latifah is spot on and JD's issues with the movie are perfectly reasonable.

I haven't seen Providence but I wouldn't be shocked to find that Stranger than Fiction isn't even in the same league as a Resnais film.

comment #15

Larry says ...

Stranger Than Fiction was weak for a lot of reasons, but one of the few things it did right was not explain why what the author was writing also happened in the real world. Doing that would have bogged down the film and made it earthbound.

comment #16

jesse says ...

I agree with most of you -- everyone saying that "Stranger Than Fiction" has a lot of flaws, but lack of metaphysical explanation isn't one of them. I'll even go so far as to say it absolutely does NOT deserve a WGA or any other kind of nomination, because it's a lousy script. This has nothing to do with metaphysics. It has to do with the way Zach Helm takes a concept similar to The Truman Show and Adaptation, and essentially makes it into exactly the kind of Hollywood piffle executives love to mistake for creativity. The basic point of the movie is that Harold Crick is this buttoned-up guy who meets this crazy gal who helps him learn he's got to LET GO and really TAKE RISKS in order to start LIVING his life (man). It's not the worst thing your movie can say, but it sure as hell isn't particularly original or interesting. Then there's the completely ridiculous (somewhat in concept and moreso in execution) Queen Latifah character, who does nothing except provide another very screenplay-ish voice to converse with the mannered Emma Thompson character. Towards the end of the movie, Thompson's character thanks her. Zer?! For what?! For serving as a cheap screenwriting device? All of Thompson's scenes would've been better off played solo.

Ferrell and Gyllenhaal and Hoffman all give it their best, but the movie is only smart, funny, and sweet in fits and starts, not all the way through. It's a pale imitation of inventiveness.

All of this occurred to me while watching the film -- and yet I didn't once stop and think "hey, what gives, how can Harold Crick be real and in a book at the same time??"

comment #17

jesse says ...

Oh, and yeah, the Devil Wears Prada screenplay is an even worse nomination. What did it have going for it, writing-wise? A couple of semi-decent mean quips? Actually, there weren't even that many of those, and those that *were* there worked more because of Streep's delivery than the writing. Ugh.

I wasn't crazy about the writing in Notes on a Scandal, either, though. It's fine for what it is, but it doesn't really go anywhere or mean much.

For that matter, the script to Little Miss Sunshine is probably the movie's weakest point. It's not bad, by any means, but it traffics in its share of cliches (a wanna-be self-help guru ... doesn't actually have it all together?! You don't say!!)

And where was the writing in United 93 again? Jesus. This really is a pretty lousy crop.

The Prestige and Brick had some of the best (adapted and original, respectively) writing of the year. Of these ten nominees, only The Departed and Little Children are really in their league (though I can at least see the merit in The Queen and Babel).

comment #18

Joshua Mooney says ...

ckKennedy asked:

---Joshua, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree that the metaphysics demanded explanation. The only two questions I needed answered were "How does he stay alive?" and "How does he get the girl?".---

ckKennedy, I can't give ya an answer, and that's essentially my problem with the film. Oh, I could give you an ANSWER, of course-- and maybe I'd be wrong-- but my larger point was that your needing to ask these questions in the first place is exactly what's wrong with the whole shebang.

Also, I think you might have mis-read my previous post: I didn't say that "metaphysics" demands an explanation-- of course it does not. Meta-fiction, on the other hand, needs ultimately to have its feet firmly planted in something real, otherwise, as De Niro's Jake said of the steak his first wife over-cooked for him in "Raging Bull": "It defeats its own porpoise!"

I couldn't have said it better myself.

comment #19

Craig Kennedy says ...

Joshua, I did indeed switch your use of metaphysics and meta-fiction, but the point remains the same.

My further point about the questions I needed answered was that they were answered and I was therefore completely satisfied. I admit I approached the film simple-mindedly and gave it a lot of leeway I wouldn't grant other films. Still, I went into the theater in a bad mood and came out in a good one so this one gets filed in the "good" category.

Just out of curiosity, where did you stand on the whole CoM infertility issue?

comment #20

jeffmcm says ...

Did anybody care that Charlie Kaufman never explained why the passage into John Malkovich's head emptied onto the NJ turnpike?
Lame.

comment #21

Joshua Mooney says ...

Yeah, I guess we had diff reactions to "STF," cjKennedy. Thasss cool. Your mood was changed: That's what matters.

Or what are these people being paid millions for, eh?

I happen to have a big bee in me bonnet about meta-fiction, because it's sort of my life's larger work, but, as you point out, in the grand scheme of things, it's (chuckle) much ado about nothing.

BUT IT WOULD BE SAD IF THIS MOVIE WAS TO BE THE CAUSE OF MY LIFE'S WORK TURNING TO SHIT, BECAUSE IT WASN'T A GOOD MOVIE!

But it made you feel good, so that's something.

Oh yeah: You have to understand two things: I only post to Jeff's site when I've made the calculated risk of mixing my anti-psychotics with my "Restless-leg" medication; and 2: I'm incredibly ignorant, so I don't know that you mean by "CoM infertility issue."

So I guess I have to fall back on the ol' Groucho Marx line: "Whatever it is, I'm against it!"

comment #22

Jeff says ...

I never cared that "Stranger then Fiction" never explained how the main character was hearing the voices. What bothered me about the film was that it really made no sense. After Harold Crick starts hearing voices he begins to change his life beucase of what the voice is saying. The voice is clearly not a character in the book that is being written, but the book shows him doing things like learning to play guitar and putting the moves on Maggie Gyllenhaal that he only did becuase he heard the voice. Was Dustin Hoffman in the book too, becuase all the stuff he told Harold also changed stuff in his life that was being written in the book. I enjoyed parts of the film, but thinking about how flawed the screenplay is always makes my head hurt.

comment #23

Jeff says ...

I never cared that "Stranger then Fiction" never explained how the main character was hearing the voices. What bothered me about the film was that it really made no sense. After Harold Crick starts hearing voices he begins to change his life beucase of what the voice is saying. The voice is clearly not a character in the book that is being written, but the book shows him doing things like learning to play guitar and putting the moves on Maggie Gyllenhaal that he only did becuase he heard the voice. Was Dustin Hoffman in the book too, becuase all the stuff he told Harold also changed stuff in his life that was being written in the book. I enjoyed parts of the film, but thinking about how flawed the screenplay is always makes my head hurt.

comment #24

christian says ...

i meant "slim" as in the book's substance is as tapioca.