The Film Experience

For today's Oscar Volley, Lynn and Elisa discuss the Oscar race for Adapted Screenplay.

LYNN LEE: Let’s start with the elephant giant doll not in the room: Barbie is out! Assuming, that is, the Academy agrees it’s properly competing for Original rather than Adapted Screenplay. Personally, I think Barbie does belong in Original even if it is technically based on an existing “property.” And whatever the calculus behind the decision to compete in that category, I’m not convinced it has an easier path to victory than if it had opted for Adapted. Be that as it may, its absence means that in stark contrast to last year, this year’s Adapted Screenplay slate may be composed entirely of adaptations of books, glorious books!

But which ones? Oppenheimer and Killers of the Flower Moon are the two obvious frontrunners, and I’m bullish on American Fiction getting a nod based on how enthusiastically it’s been received by early audiences. Poor Things is probably also in, even if the film proves too outré for the more conservative segment of the Academy. The last slot is hard to predict, but it’s still most likely to be something derived from a book – whether it’s The Zone of Interest, All of Us Strangers, or Priscilla. (Though I feel like Priscilla has faded from the conversation.) Or The Color Purple, which is adapted from the musical but still derived from the Alice Walker novel.

Elisa, what am I missing? Are there other potential contenders that are not based on books?

ELISA GIUDICI: Barbie deserves a title here: the best possible entry worth arguing about. However, I disagree with you. It’s not just the issue of “already existing characters” for me; it’s how the entire plot relies on our shared, common knowledge of Barbie’s intellectual property. It’s not even a “grey zone” for me; on the contrary, allowing it could lead a persuasive person to argue that even a certain usage of comic books, books, or movie characters is original.

This problem also reveals how, deep down, an original screenplay carries the allure of a “better" screenplay. Not for the job itself, as adapting a text can be as challenging as creating a new story, but because the Best Original Screenplay category has been used for years as “the Best Picture Oscar we didn't have the courage to give to an unconventional movie.” It’s no surprise that a movie like Barbie would like to be perceived that way.

I agree that the path is extremely bookish and will be difficult for everyone this year. There are already two clear frontrunners as you have pointed out. Both movies are based on “prestigious,” highbrow books, especially the one Scorsese’s movie is adapted from. Everybody knows the tale of the crazy bidding to get the rights even before the book was out, which is like saying “this movie is an exquisite fictional dish made with the best raw materials.”

I have read a good number of the books on which this possible quintet is based, and Poor Things is perhaps the most peculiar one. I think Tony McNamara did an incredible job making a radical, weird story more palatable and filmable, yet reinforcing its strongest point: Bella. The point of view in the book is not Bella’s, so the movie has to come up with a lot of “fillings.” I find the final result even more powerful than the book, and that's quite rare.

The Zone of Interest is even more radical. I don’t know if, reading the book without knowing the movie is based on that text, I would have guessed it. It is the opposite of Barbie; the story is so different, with a couple of crucial characters completely missing from the picture... it felt so original.

I think this year there could be a couple of spots for foreign movies. It will depend a lot on the box office and reviews, but The Taste of Things could be a real surprise here. If the movie gains momentum in Best International it could show up here. It does not have the competition from the other big French movie of the year – Anatomy of a Fall is an original story.

LYNN: You make good points on Barbie as an adaptation. But I think they just underscore how arbitrary having an “adapted” category is in the first place when you’re comparing such different kinds of adaptation, some of which blur the line between “adapted” and “original” much more than others – The Zone of Interest being a perfect example. You also prompt another question I’ve often pondered in the context of this category – how much does it matter that, particularly in the case of books, most voters will not be familiar with the original source material for all or even most of the potential contenders?

I don’t say that with any false superiority: of the group we’re talking about, I’ve only read David Grann’s Killers of the Flower Moon, which heavily influenced my tepid opinion of both the screenplay and the film as a whole. While I understand why Scorsese decided to shift away from the book’s focus on the investigative side of the Osage murders and the proto-FBI agent who cracked the case, I really don’t understand why he shifted the focus from the good white guy to the bad white guys, other than to give his two favorite actors the biggest parts. It robs the film of any element of mystery, when he and co-writer Eric Roth could have so easily retold the story from the perspective of Lily Gladstone’s character and preserved some of the doubt and mystery.

In most cases, though, an adaptation’s tweaks or departures – or lack thereof – are going to be lost on the average voter. In that respect, Adapted Screenplay reminds me a bit of the Editing category: you can’t account for the raw material you haven’t seen. What you’re really judging is how well the finished product translates on screen. And maybe that’s ok. But in the case of screenplay, I can’t help wondering if it wouldn’t be fairer just to have one category with ten spots. Though maybe it would only result in fewer adaptations being nominated...much less winning.

For dark horses, I’ll see your Taste of Things (which I haven’t actually seen yet) and raise you an Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret. I haven’t read that particular Judy Blume, but the film is such a refreshingly down-to-earth, tender, and believable portrait of adolescent girlhood it would be a terrific counterpoint to all the heavyweight contenders that are as much auteur as author-driven. Unfortunately it’s also an extreme long shot for that same reason.

Pipe dreams aside, which prospective nominee are you rooting hardest for to make this year's lineup? I.e., what would actually make you sad or mad if it gets snubbed?

ELISA: Your take on Killers of the Flower Moon really drives home how much a movie’s perception changes after reading the book it’s based on, whether it’s before or after watching the film. That’s what makes this Oscar category so interesting. You get to judge a creator’s work from the very beginning, from how they decide to tell the story they’re tackling. Imagine if the Osage County murders were told from Lily Gladstone’s character’s perspective – it could’ve been even more horrifying. But there’s something about knowing it all from the get-go and being stuck witnessing what seems inevitable. It’s a divisive choice, for sure.

Having just one category for all screenplays? That never crossed my mind, but it’s kind of fascinating! Still, my gut reaction is to keep them separate because it’s a different kind of work. Even though most Academy members might see the adapted material as original, especially if they haven't read the book, I’m sticking with two separate Oscars. It adds a bit of spice to the occasional debate over whether something is genuinely original.

Hoping my top picks for adaptations this year won’t get overlooked, I’m crossing my fingers that the Academy doesn’t snub Poor Things and The Zone of Interest. Their take on the source material is as experimental and innovative as the filmmaking that followed. There’s been a lot of buzz about Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret, and I feel like it might be the dark horse in this category. It could even have a slightly better chance than a non-English speaking movie, but let’s wait and see. I’m definitely cheering for Glazer and Tony McNamara, with my eyes peeled for American Fiction.

How about you? Any favorites you’re rooting for, or any worries about potential snubs?

Here’s my final ballot prediction:

Oppenheimer – Christopher Nolan
Killers of the Flower Moon – Eric Roth, Martin Scorsese
Poor Things – Tony McNamara
American Fiction – Cord Jefferson
The Zone of Interest – Jonathan Glazer

I’m a bit concerned that American Fiction and The Zone of Interest might miss out, possibly replaced by Priscilla, All of Us Strangers, The Color Purple, or The Taste of Things. It feels like only one international film might secure a spot, but hey, Academy, surprise us!

LYNN: Maybe because I saw American Fiction when it was in the early stages of building buzz, it still feels like an underdog to me – especially next to the juggernauts that are Oppenheimer and Killers of the Flower Moon. However, I’m pretty confident it will get in here, if nothing else to recognize Cord Jefferson for coming out of nowhere and making a 20-year-old novel (Percival Everett’s Erasure) feel absolutely of the moment. Though really the themes are, if not timeless, deep rooted – the film plays like a less angry Bamboozled or a more broadly comedic 40 Year Old Version, ironically more accessible to exactly the type of (white, privileged) viewers it skewers.

I’m also rooting for All of Us Strangers, though much less confident of its chances on nomination morning. While I haven’t read the book it’s based on – Taichi Yamada’s Strangers – based on what I’ve read about it I think Andrew Haigh’s pulled off a remarkable feat of adaptive alchemy. He’s essentially taken a ghost story and grafted onto it a deeply personal take on loss and loneliness from the perspective of a Gen X gay man. I’m not sure he quite sticks the landing – a reservation I also have about American Fiction, as it happens – but the sum total is so moving it doesn’t really matter.

My predictions are exactly the same as yours! Is that boring? Ok, then I’ll go out on a short limb and sub in All of Us Strangers for (sorry!) The Zone of Interest. You couldn’t pick two more different films, and yet I could see both cornering different bases of passionate support. Honestly, I’d rather both films made it into the lineup and Killers did not...but we both know that’s not happening. Frankly, there’s a better chance the writers branch of AMPAS kicks Barbie into Adapted after all.

Any parting thoughts, Elisa?

ELISA: I think we’re diving into this Oscar Season talk at just the right time. After skimming through the Golden Globes nominations, it feels like we’re already familiar with the main contenders, but let’s be real—it’s still too early to call the finalists. If All of Us Strangers keeps riding that hype train, why not throw in a nomination? It’d be a sweet shout-out to Haigh, who's at that stage in his career where an official Oscar nod for a movie with this vibe and these beloved actors would be spot on.

We know that a nod in this category can be a cool pat on the back for up-and-comers who’ve already shown they’ve got the chops. Maybe our final ballot is missing that kind of entry, so your second-guessing is interesting and wouldn’t bother me, a Glazer fan, too much.