Best Screenplay 1966

[The Original BJ]

Finally caught up with the Original slate, which offers some pretty slim pickings.

The Naked Prey mostly comes off like an early version of The Revenant (a movie that, despite double digit nominations, couldn't crack the screenplay list, for good reason). There can't be more than two pages of dialogue in the whole script, and even if you acknowledge that writing is more than just dialogue, the plot and character work basically amounts to zilch. A simple survival tale, emphasis on simple.

Khartoum is another movie that feels baffling as a screenplay-only nominee. It's the kind of decently mounted historical epic I could see placing in a lot of tech categories, but I just don't find there to be that much life to the writing to justify singling it out here, and only here. This just isn't my kind of movie at all, and although I can acknowledge the impressive work done in the best such efforts (like Lawrence of Arabia), I didn't think the screenplay here even came close.

I can only assume A Man and a Woman copped this prize by having an arty sheen, but without the scandalous nudity of the other such option on the ballot. Because as a piece of writing it's REALLY thin, with its jazzy narrative structure basically masking the fact that nothing much actually happens. By the time the movie got to its late-film reveal, my thought was, THAT is all this amounted to? It's not painful to watch, and has a stylish vibe to it, but given that so few foreign scripts have ever won this prize, it's irksome this is one of them.

The Fortune Cookie would be my clear runner-up. It's got an amusing premise, and quite a lot of very funny dialogue (most of it relished by Walter Matthau in his winningly grumpy performance). I don't think the movie quite sticks the landing, though -- the events leading to Lemmon revealing the true nature of his condition feel totally contrived, and everything after that, including the trite football throwing scene that concludes the picture, feels like the product of a script that just couldn't quite figure out how to wrap up its story. It's obviously second-tier Wilder, but like A Foreign Affair, has many of the qualities that made him such an impressive writer.

Blow-Up, though, is just so clearly the best overall movie on the ballot, and sometimes that's enough to choose it for this prize, even if I would agree that it's more of a director's movie. The film's most famous sequence, of course, is entirely wordless, with its impact coming more from the way it's shot and edited than as story, and the plot on the whole lacks the kind of narrative turns (or resolution) that would have pleased Aristotle when he defined his theory on poetics. But I guess that, in its own way, makes the writing admirable -- the movie is so clearly its own inventive thing, unencumbered by traditional Hollywood narrative structures, that its mysteries will likely continue to inspire new theories long after all of us are gone. It's the best choice (and given the director nomination, voters' willingness to go art-house in this category, and its surprising box office haul, I do wonder if it might have actually come close to winning in such a thin year.)

[Kellens101]

Seconds is so amazing and underrated. I probably would've given it my vote too had it been nominated. Thank god at least James Wong Howe's incredible cinematography was recognized.

[The Original BJ]

Italiano pretty clearly highlights the challenges with voting in the Adapted Screenplay race this year -- if "it was a filmed play" is often a disqualification for a vote in this category, what do you do when all of the best options are filmed plays?

Well, the first thing I'll do is lament that there aren't some more exciting alternates. Had Seconds been on the ballot, it would have had my vote outright, for being one of the best Twilight Zone-esque feature scripts ever. And the delightful Georgy Girl is probably a stronger screenwriting achievement than any of the actual nominees as well.

There are a couple of nominees that are fairly easy to eliminate, starting with The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming. If you described the set-up of the movie to someone, you might say that it's essentially The Invaders with laughs, which pretty much sounds like a ludicrous idea for a movie. Of course, that description wouldn't be entirely accurate either, because to say that the movie even has that many laughs is being generous. And I found the climax completely ridiculous -- suggesting that if only people realized that children were being put in danger could we have prevented the Cold War! A stupid nominee.

The Professionals seems mostly like a generic western to me, lacking any of the revolutionary spirit of The Wild Bunch, or even just the wit of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. It was interesting to read Mister Tee cite a twist ending, because I found that I had to look up a plot summary online to even remember what the ending was -- it certainly didn't feel to me like any great narrative surprise when I watched the movie. I think the script is engaging enough -- certainly the movie is more watchable than Russians -- but it isn't remotely distinguished in any way to merit this prize.

Okay, now we get to the big dilemma for me in voting in this category: I agree with everyone that Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is by far the best piece of writing on the ballot, a gripping relationship drama with a ton of acerbic dialogue and a narrative that covers quite a bit of ground even in a limited time frame. And the material's influence on the American theater -- from the immediate (The Boys in the Band) to present day (August: Osage County) -- makes it an utterly legendary work. But where was the screenwriting? It's basically just the play on screen -- brilliantly performed, directed, and photographed, which made it much more than your average filmed play, I should add -- but from a script standpoint, not much of an adaptation. And it's not even like a vote here honors the person who actually wrote the material. What did Ernest Lehman even do here?

The problem is, I'm not familiar with the source material for the other nominated scripts to know if they were more significant screenwriting achievements. Alfie does feel opened up for the cinema -- actually more than Woolf or Seasons, it feels like the script that wanted to hide its stage origins the most. And I think the title character is a great creation, lively and funny and caddy and tragic depending on the moment, and a perfect embodiment of the rebellious spirit of mid-60's Britain. But I don't feel the movie necessarily has a very clear take on its protagonist -- by the end of the story, I wasn't totally sure what themes or ideas the script was wanting to leave me with. So, though I found it an entertaining journey, I wasn't completely sold on the destination.

I assume A Man for All Seasons was a pretty easy winner here with Oscar, given its overall award haul. I'm not quite as high on the movie as Oscar was -- I think it's a respectable historical piece, but not an exceedingly lively or inventive one. Still, it manages to avoid a lot of the pitfalls of the genre -- there's a wit to it that many similar films could sorely use, and it manages to find contemporary relevance in More's story without being heavy-handed about it. I'm not familiar with the play to know how the adaptation compares, but I understand that there were some notable deletions (the narrator) and a decent number of new scenes written just for the film, which makes it, at least to my unknowing eyes, more of a screenwriting effort than Woolf. Plus, at least here a vote for the screenplay is a vote for the person who actually wrote the material, because Robert Bolt adapted his own play. (And I guess it doesn't hurt that while there are multiple good opportunities to vote for Ernest Lehman up ahead, I know I won't be voting for either of Bolt's legendary Lean screenplays.)

So, even though in nearly any other year, I'd brush it off with the "filmed play" argument, I'll go with A Man for All Seasons here. I guess.

[Kellens101]

My votes would go to the dazzling, ambiguous and chilling masterpiece that is Blowup and the great play adaptation that is Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Even though the dialogue is pretty much taken from the play, it's still an amazing adaptation and preserves what made the play great, while at the same time, making it even better due to Mike Nichols's incredible direction, and the startling, devastating and brilliant performances of the entire 4-person cast.

[ITALIANO]

Blow Up is such a legendary movie - the kind of movie one could and should talk about for hours... And the competition honestly is quite weak - though I have to say that Khartoum is a very dignified epic, which deals with interesting themes (themes which are historical, but still relevant today). And when I saw The Naked Prey as little more than a child I was truly disturbed by it and by its portrayal of a cruel, unfriendly nature. I should, of course, see it again today - I remember that it has almost no dialogue, and some scenes, especially those with the animals, are still with me after all these years - but effective as it may be, it certainly can't be compared to the depth and the complexity of Antonioni's masterpiece. Which is first of all a director's movie, true (and what a director!), but whose elusive mood (some would say frustratingly elusive, but I dont think so) and thriller-like narrative are the result of a very intelligent script - written by three artists.

I didn't vote in Adapted. For a simple reason: the script of Virginia Woolf is obviously the best - by far. Truly explosive dialogue, and still almost as electrifying today as it must have been back then - the sign of a true classic. The problem is, of course, not only that it's based on a play, but that it's EXTREMELY close to that play, too close to be given any kind of prize, really. Yes, I know, there are some scenes set in the garden or in that roadhouse, but the dialogue is the same, let's face it. One could say that this kind of respect for a - justly celebrated - original source is the best approach a screenwriter should have - but Lehman's contribution is truly too limited. (A Man for All Seasons is a more creative screenplay, despite being also based on a stage play, but it's clearly a lesser effort). As Alfie is also based on play (which I have never read), I could only choose one between The Professionals and The Russians are Coming, but abstaining is, I guess, the best solution.

[Mister Tee]

1966 wasn’t much of a year, and the original screenplay category makes that plain. Forman’s Loves of a Blonde is way superior to most of this bunch.

The Naked Prey came during the brief period when Cornel Wilde was take semi-seriously as an auteur (Beach Red the following year also received some praise). The film’s premise was intriguing (so much so it was openly parodied four year later in Where’s Poppa?), but, as Magilla says, it’s hardly what you think of as a writer’s movie.

A Man and a Woman was a swoony make-out hit in its day, but anyone who caught up with it later (I first saw it in the mid -80s, and tried it again about 15 years after) must find its 1966 reputation inexplicable. The two main characters feel generic, and nothing they do rises to the level of interest. Strictly a product of its time.

The Fortune Cookie is a pale shadow of the great Billy Wilder films. The idea isn’t bad, but way too much of the comedy feels sour (a problem that was to plague Wilder for most of the rest of his career) and the racial reconciliation finish is overtly sentimental. Given the thin competition, I’m fine with Wilder getting a valedictory nomination, but a win here would diminish his much deserved earlier victories. (Earlier in real terms; later, for us)

To show my dedication to this board, I watched Khartoum a second time a few months back, almost 50 years after my first encounter. It’s not half-bad, for a kind of movie I never exactly look forward to seeing. Basil Dearden is a better director than usually mounts these sorts of things, and Robert Ardrey’s script does a decent enough job conveying history obscure to me. Not a vote-getter, but not agony. (Tangential question, one I hope someone versed in British history can answer: Gladstone is pretty much the heavy in this movie. Why does Disraeli always seem to be portrayed so much more positively (and as more important) than Gladstone? Gladstone, from what I see, spent about twice as much time in the prime minister’s position. Given that he was the liberal and Disraeli the Tory, you’d think Hollywood’s legendary left leanings would have made him more favored by writers. What gives?)

Blow Up has that terrific central idea, but, apart from that, I think of it as far more a director’s film than a writer’s creation – there’s certainly no dialogue worth remembering, and what sticks in the mind afterward is more the overall mood than any plot developments beyond that main concept. However…Blow Up is without doubt the strongest film on the list, by such a margin that, even with these quibbles, it gets my vote with ease.

My beloved Georgy Girl would have replaced any of three of the adapted candidates. In a lighter mood, I might push for The Wrong Box to knock out another, as well.

I’ve already battered The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming in the film/director thread, and feel no great need to go through it again. The film has a bland, 60s TV-sitcom set-up and execution, but, most sharply to the point, it’s not very funny. Frantic, yes; flailing after laughs – but not evoking much unforced mirth. It’s another product of the times, though one I didn’t fathom even while it was going on.

It’s now almost half a century since I saw The Professionals, so I’m working on very faded memories. What I recall is a pleasant enough but undistinguished western, largely sold by its cast (Lee Marvin at the time being in his brief peak of stardom), and what was then a twist ending, but which now has been seen so many times it has no impact. Brooks’ nomination the following year is more deserved by a factor of infinity.

Of the three play adaptations that make up the remainder of the slate, Alfie has the least impressive source material. The film is actually an improvement on the play (a quick Broadway flop two years earlier); it has a fair amount of witty dialogue (at least, dialogue Michael Caine made sound witty), which helps the audience glide along even though the plot is somewhat episodic (and leads to a moralistic, wages-of-sin conclusion). I enjoy the movie well enough, but it can’t hope to compete with the two titans to follow.

If, as some argue, part of our criteria for deciding this category should be “amount-of-work required in adaptation”, A Man for All Seasons would hold the upper hand, since Robert Bolt eliminated a central character (the narrator Common Man) from his play. This deletion changed the focus -- making the play more straightforward in its history, and completely Thomas More-centric. Happily, Bolt has made More a strong enough character to carry the film, giving him plenty of memorable dialogue -- maybe a bit too much; it stacks the deck for him to be so much wittier and more thoughtful than any other character in sight. But that objection fades when you get to hear some of the terrific discourse -- peaking in the oft-quoted “I’d give the devil benefit of law..” speech. The movie, like the play, has enough on its mind to be more impressive than the standard medieval history film, and wasn’t a bad choice.

But Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is better than that – in fact, one of the great plays of the twentieth century (still frequently revived in the twenty-first). So, even though Edward Albee is correct in saying Ernest Lehman’s primary contribution was typing, the film deserves the vote here simply for being the best writing in the category -- the best screenplay. Sometimes quality by itself must be recognized.

[Precious Doll]

Original

Blow Up is my easy winner here. Aside from The Fortune Cookie the nominees are a poor bunch.

Adapted

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is my easy winner here with a couple of respectable nominees: A Man for All Seasons and The Professionals.

A share Magilla's view on A Man and A Woman along with the omission of Morgan.

Aside from Morgan other notable omissions include Faster Pussycat, Kill, Kill, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, Seconds & Dutchman. A rather middling year for English speaking cinema.

[Heksagon]

In the Adapted category, it's a tough choice between two splendid filmed plays, so to speak, with A Man for All Seasons and Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolf. I'm going to go with the former, maybe not so much because I feel it's a better film, but because it's more my type of a movie: I prefer historical dramas to these dialogue-heavy dramas that all take place in the space of a single day. (I think I've said this earlier, but I feel that setting a drama in a single day doesn't give the characters enough time to develop. The premise works a lot better in comedies)

Of the other nominees, Alfie is a good film, and surprisingly well aged also, but no match for the Seasons or Virginia. The Professionals and The Russians Are Coming are both fairly mediocre films.

[Big Magilla]

Original

I suppose I should give the Oscar-winning A Man and a Woman another try, but I found it a bunch of nothing when I first saw it and attempts at watching it again over the years resulted in my giving up long before the end. If they were insistent on awarding a foreign language film in lieu of the dreadful made-in-Hollywood candidates, there were better choices in The Shop on Main Street, Loves of a Blonde and Juliet of the Spirits.

The screenplay may not have been the best thing about Blow-Up but it was the best film among those nominated in this category so it gets my vote easily. Morgan! is another British film that deserved a nod here. Those two plus the three foreign language films I mentioned above would be my five picks here.

Of the Hollywood product nominated, I found Khartoum an a well-made film, but I don't recall its screenplay being all that distinguished. I also liked The Naked Prey although it was so light on dialogue that I have no idea why they nominated it. The Fortune Cookie was clever, of course. It was written by Billy Wilder and I.A.L. diamond, so how could it not be, but it was too sour for my taste.

Adapted

The Oscar-winning A Man for All Seasons] is the class act here and gets my vote, but Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? is so brilliantly written that it would probably be my pick in another year. Both are adaptations of plays that didn't change much in the way of dialogue in their journeys to the screen, but of the two, A Man for All Seasons looks more like a movie than a filmed stage play.

Alfie is a strong contender here as well, but pales next to the above two. The Professionals is an OK nominee, but I would have been just as happy to have seen a nod for Seconds, 7 Women or The Shameless Old Lady instead. I would definitely have preferred a nomination for Georgy Girl over The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming.

[Kellens101]

What were the best screenplays of 1966?