Oscars force Barbie to compete in Best Adapted Screenplay because it adapted… Barbie
Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach's Barbie script is officially an adaptation of the existing character, according to an Academy ruling
Aux News Barbie
When we think of the Oscars’ Best Adapted Screenplay award, our minds typically drift to the world of books. With a few exceptions—short films, plays, the occasional magazine article—Best Adapted Screenplays have largely been culled from the world of novels, memoirs, and the occasional non-fiction piece; the adaptation in question almost always coming from one act of writing into the world of another, i.e., cinematic screenplays.
Which is why it’s interesting to learn this week that Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach’s script for their summer blockbuster Barbie will also be competing in the category at this year’s Academy Awards, since Gerwig and Baumbach adapted the film from, well… Barbie. As in, the doll.
Now, this slightly odd decision is not completely unprecedented—Christopher Miller chimed in on social media today to note that his and Phil Lord’s 2014 screenplay for The Lego Movie was similarly deemed an “adaptation” of plastic because it was based on Lego—and “based on existing characters” is a somewhat regular criteria for inclusion in the category. (Last year, both Glass Onion and Top Gun: Maverick were nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay because they were sequels “based on” existing characters.) But Gerwig and Baumbach clearly disagreed, since they reportedly campaigned for the film for Best Original Screenplay. The Writers Guild Of America recognized the script as an original for its own upcoming awards, but the Writers Group of the Academy handed their own judgment down today, dubbing it an adaptation.
Thinking about the film, we can kind of understand both sides: Gerwig’s movie is largely concerned with coming to terms with an existing character’s position in the world; the film couldn’t really work in the same way if it was based on a fictional doll without a multi-decade history to draw upon. On the other hand, Gerwig and Baumbach’s Barbie script has almost nothing to do with any other piece of written material, give or take ad copy on the back of doll boxes; you can’t really fault them for suggesting their film isn’t adapting anything except the culture it was produced in, and that basically applies to every script ever written.
Anyway, the move will likely shift fortunes in both of the affected categories. Best Original Screenplay will now see more vigorous fights between films like The Holdovers, May December, and Cannes winner Anatomy Of A Fall; Barbie, meanwhile, will be running against Martin Scoresese’s Killers Of The Flower Moon—and, perhaps inevitably, Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer.
125 Comments
While I would probably design the rules differently if I were doing it personally — it’s clearly an “original” story — that seems right given the rules that exist. The Academy has been pretty consistent on their position that if one or more main characters existed prior to the writer sitting down to write the script, it’s an adaptation.
I think the category you propose would be hard to administer in practice. Is, say, The Dark Knight an original story under your framework? It is not adapted from a single source material, and you can’t point to any specific comic and say, “The movie is an adaption of _____.” But it obviously uses characters that existed previously and draws significantly from other Batman works (most prominently, in the Dent part of the story, The Long Halloween).Under your framework, someone would have to do a deep dive into how much of the work is inspired by other sources. Under the Academy’s framework, the analysis is easy — it’s a Batman movie, so it’s adapted.
That’s fair, and something similar occurred to me after I had posted. The thing that was stuck in my head as the real non-ideal outcome was something like Glass Onion being forced to compete as an adaptation of Knives Out. So I’d probably just include a carve out in the rule for sequels written by the same author as the original work rather than wholly reshaping it.
I’d say for once the Academy has it right. A character like Barbie is built on decades of how the world sees her, including previous cartoon adaptations. Someone mentioned Joked just upthread – an origin story for a VERY well-established character clearly adapts what has come before into a new twist on him.
This seems to lock up an Oscar for Gerwig, at least.
um oppenheimer?
Yeah I think Oppenheimer is gonna win in the Adapted Category. The cynic in me thinks this is in part why Gerwig et al were fighting for Original Screenplay consideration. Because they do not want to compete against Oppenheimer. Nolan is virtually a lock to win.
Oh I definitely think they were trying to avoid Oppenheimer. Also, I must have missed the barbie box where her narrative is “thoughts of death” that they adapted
I mean, I still think it’s correct to consider the script an adaptation. Because it is based upon an existing intellectual property. They adapted it to a new medium. Was the story an original conception? Yes. But it was still based upon an existing creation. It’s an adaptation. It’s an important distinction, because adaptations carry different advantages. Let’s say, for the sake of arguing, that Gerwig and Baumbach wrote the exact same story, but instead of Barbie, they created a new, fictional doll called Marnie. Would it be the same film? Would it have carried the same cultural weight? Would it have been as big a hit? I doubt it. The film owes a great deal of its cache to the fact that it is reimagining an existing property that carries with it a good deal of meaning. And that is very different from an original script, where you are not tied to that, but also do not enjoy the advantages. I think that is ultimately the price to be paid. They got a much bigger splash because it was about Barbie, but in exchange for being allowed to call it an original concept. Because it’s not. Also, lets not forget that this Barbie movie had been in development hell for years. The movie as it now exists is the culmination of a lot of efforts at writing the story, and all that has to be taken into account.Honestly, for me there is no question this belongs in the adapted category.
The WGA says it is an original screenplay…because it is not based on an existing narrative that is being adapted. This Oscars definition of adaptation is not shared by anything. Again, please consider why “adapting” somebody’s life story then isn’t an adaptation like King Richard or The Fabelmans. Why would it be original when you are fictionalizing something that actually happened…especially when you are using “characters” that are biographical people. You don’t adapt a character you adapt a narrative or a text. And Barbie wasn’t even a character, she has no features, it isn’t even like a carebear that has a basic personality like “Brave.” This is just baseless.
If Barbie hasn’t got any features then how come I’ve been reading about how they’re unreleastic and set dangerous precedents for little girls since the dang 80s.
personality features, genius
and Killers of the Flower Moon
Maybe, but Killers of the Flower Moon is in there too and boy is that the exact sort of thing the Oscars voters tend to love.
I think it will be an anointment of Oppenheimer. Frankly I would prefer Oppenheimer over Killers, I think Killers picked the worst of the three most clear perspectives on the story…I would have preferred they either told it from the perspective of the blackfeet or went with the FBI as the main characters, as Paul Schrader pointed out watching some idiot (who isn’t even played consistently as an idiot) for three hours is kinda boring
I don’t understand why this is even controversial. It’s an adaptation of something that already existed before Gerwig sat down to write it. She used several characters that previously existed she did not create. It’s an adaptation.
Because the co -creator deem it an “original” and if that’s what they say, that’s what it is, just as it was recognized by another award-granting body as such. As far as I know, there is no other Barbie ‘narrative’ from which that adapted. Typically the creator credits the “original.” That has not happened here because there isn’t.
Maybe don’t post after drinking?
But as the article explains, the Oscars have different criteria than just “the narrative”, and this is far, far from unprecedented.
It’s not unprecedented, but there are some valid examples where something was deemed original when under this criteria it seems adapted. For example, Aaron Sorkin’s The Trial of the Chicago 7 was deemed original despite the fact that a historical film would require substantial pre-existing sources to develop the story. King Richard was also deemed original while arguably being adapted from various memoirs. Same for Spotlight and Straight Outta Compton. While I don’t think this is an egregious decision and I still think Barbie has a good chance of winning in Adapted (especially if Oppenheimer has the momentum to pick up larger awards), but I do think it reflects the possibility that they need to re-evaluate an adapted narrative vs. an existing concept vs. history.
Those are all based on real life, and I did ponder in another post why only fiction seems to count for adaptations. Whatever the reason, there seems to be different criteria for pure fiction. I don’t know if there have been fictional exceptions.
I agree that they are all based on real life and that there is some ephemeral difference to the Academy. Just highlighting that it’s an odd difference to have unless we are supposed to think Sorkin concocted the entire plot of Trial of the Chicago 7 without referencing a single pre-existing piece of literature on the subject or interviews or quotes from the real people involved (even with his creative license in that one, there is without a doubt clear reference to other works).I would argue some Tarantino original entries (Django Unchained, Inglorious Basterds) have as much inspiration for existing IP as the Barbie movie does to actual Barbie dolls.
“As far as I know, there is no other Barbie ‘narrative’ from which that adapted.”
Cool, but that’s not what the rule is. You can’t say it’s something just because you made up that it’s something.
Barbie is pre-established material. PERIOD.
“Because the co -creator deem it an “original” and if that’s what they say, that’s what it is”
This is absolutely silly thinking and invites all kind of inconsistencies. Which is exactly what has occurred numerous times with the WGA awards. Writers have submitted screenplays into whatever category they feel they have the best chance to get nominated/win.
Eh, I’d say there IS a Barbie narrative. She’s shorthand for artificial / unobtainable beauty (unless you’re one of those super-weirdo human Barbies who has massive plastic surgery and ribs removed to thin our your torso), consumerism, escapism, etc. That’s what the movie plays with.But I also think the Academy already made up its mind regarding this gray area with Lego and is sticking with that formula for consistency’s sake.
If the creator wants to call it original in their home and social circles the Academy isn’t barring them from doing so. “What the creator calls it is what the Academy is compelled to call it” is not written down anywhere.“ne c’est une scénario original.” – The AMPAA
Why on earth would the creator’s opinion matter? The people giving the awards should get to make the rules for how to give them. Otherwise it’s kind of like letting running backs decide what counts as a touchdown.
All I can say at this point is that I haven’t watched TAA in probably 15 years, have no respect for the organization and regret even commenting at this point, so I’ll just scroll past any more blogs about it.
Hey, thanks so much for letting us know.We all really care about what you’re not gonna do, loser.
How much of a character is “Barbie,” though? Barbie’s character traits are entirely dependent on who’s playing with her. I could understand if it’s G.I. Joe (A Real American Hero version, anyway), because those figures all came with their own personnel file that filled in some back story.
More of a character than “Lego”, which also was considered to be adapted.
I think that’s a stretch. Sure, anyone can play with Barbie however they like, just like any toy. But Barbie’s usual character traits are set forth in endless toy commercials, as well as tons of cartoon shows and direct-to-DVD movies over the years. Put it this way: When you saw Barbie, did it surprise you that the character was depicted at the beginning of the movie as peppy and outgoing? Of course not — that’s because those are the character traits associated with Barbie. That’s why the needle drop of Barbie suddenly wondering about death works, because we’re used to the idea that scary, dour thoughts aren’t Barbie’s deal.
“How much of a character is “Barbie,” though?”
It doesn’t matter. Barbie existed before the Barbie movie.
Period.
Barbie absolutely has character traits. She is cheerful, confident, optimistic, popular, a good friend, outgoing, and fun-loving. She has a boyfriend (or friend) named Ken who is not the center of her life. And she is American, if not specifically Southern Californian (notice that for all the racial and body-shape diversity in the movie, not one Barbie didn’t have an American accent). These are all traits and details that can be gleaned from all the Barbie IP produced over the years, long before Gerwig and Baumbach entered the scene, and the movie they made heavily relies on using and deconstructing many of these tropes
The fact that Barbie’s character traits are ill-defined is a feature of Barbie, and that feature is part of the film’s narrative. Adapted by narrative, if you will.
One of the major themes of the movie is ‘Barbie can be anything’ and that’s written on every Barbie box for decades. It’s not Shakespeare but those are character themes that someone came up that Gerwig used.
There was a brief period Mattel were actually billing Barbie as an “educational toy”, under the mindset that “any toy that can be roleplayed with is therefore educational”. Which, with that reasoning, felt like a cop-out– I was a creative kid, essentially every toy I had was a vehicle for roleplay.
I agree with you. I think the controversy comes from the fact that there are people who are overly invested in Barbie winning Oscars (and I say that as someone who really liked Barbie). The Adapted Screenplay category this year includes some heavy hitters that probably makes winning there harder, so people who really want Barbie to win Oscars want it in the other category. But yeah, that doesn’t make it unfair that the Academy Awards is insisting Barbie be in the category where it belongs.
“I think the controversy comes from the fact that there are people who are overly invested in Barbie winning Oscars”I think it’s just comes from people who know what the words “adapted” and “screenplay” mean. lol I have only seen half the Barbie movie and don’t have any investment in it winning awards, but I still think this criteria needs some revisiting. Sergeant York was nominated for best original screenplay and it was based on a real guy. What about Gangs of New York, or Viva Zapata, or 2001: A Space Odyssey. What about Lady Sings the Blues. I could go on.
My sense is that the Oscars has become more strict about defining the category in recent years, probably because so much of our entertainment now is based on existing IP. All the examples you cite are at least 20 years old, and some (especially Sergeant York) much older.In recent years, I can’t see any “Original” movies that are based on prior works or existing fictional characters. And I see plenty of “Adapted” movies where the story itself was new (or new-ish) but it was based on existing characters. That includes Glass Onion (where the original was nominated as an Original screenplay), Top Gun: Maverick, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm, Joker, Logan, Before Midnight, Toy Story 3, and the original Borat film,
“My sense is that the Oscars has become more strict about defining the category in recent years”Has it, because it used to be called “Best Screenplay Based On Material From Another Medium,” which seems even more strict. Viva Zapata was based on a book, which clearly seems to be “material from another medium.” I don’t see why it matters that some are 20 years old. If it was fair 20 years ago, they need to explain why it’s not fair now instead of just saying “meh, this is how we’re interpreting it now.” Gangs of New York and 2001 are literally from books/short stories. How is that more original than using a Barbie character that had no story? I’m not saying you need to explain it. I’m saying the Academy needs to explain it.
2001’s novel and screenplay were written in tandem. You could no more say the movie is based on the book than that the book is an adaptation of the film.
I think the Academy has explained clearly what the category means. And, as I think I showed with my examples above, they’ve been consistent in delineating between the two categories in recent years. If they made Barbie an “Original” screenplay now, that would be the departure from the Academy’s rules and customs. Gangs of New York is the most recent example you can find. But, first of all, it’s nearly a quarter-century old. And the case for it being an “Original” screenplay is better than you make it out to be. Yes, it drew inspiration from a non-fiction book (and the historical events that book discusses) but the actual major characters it depicts. Even “Bill the Butcher” is only very loosely based on the real Bill the Butcher, who has a different real name in the movie. Even if you disagree that the movie is an Original screenplay, that would only mean the Academy made a mistake 22 years ago, not that it should make another mistake now.
As for Viva Zapata!, if Marlon Brando and Elia Kazan want to object to how their 70-year-old movie was categorized during the Eisenhower administration, I guess they’ve welcome to climb out of their graves and do it.
“Gangs of New York is the most recent example you can find.”lol I didn’t do a comprehensive search, but again, why is recency an issue? If the rules haven’t changed, it should be the same whether recent or not.“that would only mean the Academy made a mistake 22 years ago, not that it should make another mistake now”If that one was a mistake, they should say so so that it doesn’t look like they’re playing fast and loose. People should be accountable for their mistakes.“if Marlon Brando and Eliza Kazan want to object to how their 70-year-old movie was categorized during the Eisenhower administration”I mean, you can make a joke about it if you want? If inconsistency in rules application doesn’t matter to you, just say that. It’s okay. You don’t have to be bothered by the same stuff that bothers me.
I’ve given you a dozen examples that are fully consistent with how the Academy is treating Barbie. Again, you’re the one asking for an exception to be made. I have no idea if the rule has shifted over time, because I’m not an Oscar Best Adapted Screenplay expert (shocking, I know). But treating Barbie as an Adapted Screenplay seems like it is consistent with the language of the rule right now.To whom do you think the Academy owes an explanation about the 22-year-old categorization of Gangs of New York? Do you want a press release saying, “Hey, we were just going back through every movie we categorized as a Original Screenplay nominee in our entire history, and we’re so sorry about how we made a boo boo when it comes to Viva Zapata! 70 years ago. Only we didn’t make a book boo, because we weren’t involved in the decision, and everybody who was involved is dead. We humbly apologize to no one, on behalf of no one.”I care plenty about consistency of rules application. That does require me to give a shit that the rules have always been perfectly applied, over the last century, as to the proper categorization of movies for a fucking award show. And if you get outraged every time there is some arguable inconsistency in the application of a rule over the course of a century, well, you’re in for a lot of disappointment.
“I’ve given you a dozen examples that are fully consistent with how the Academy is treating Barbie.”And I’ve given you examples that are not.“Again, you’re the one asking for an exception to be made.”If you re-read my comments, you’ll find I’ve made no such request.“To whom do you think the Academy owes an explanation about the 22-year-old categorization of Gangs of New York?”Anyone who asks? I’m not sure why an explanation should be reserved for a precious few.“Do you want a press release”If there was one I’d read it.“I care plenty about consistency of rules application.”Do you?“That does require me to give a shit”I don’t see where anyone has asked, let alone required, anything of you whatsoever.
“And if you get outraged every time”Between the two of us, am I really the one who seems outraged here?
Whether one agrees or not, there are reasons for the other films you cite as well. Gangs of New York was put in original because it was deemed that the book was used for research but the actual characters were purely invented. 2001 was inspired by The Sentinel and obviously bears a couple similarities but Arthur Clarke, who wrote the short story and collaborated with Kubrick on the screenplay publicly maintained they are not related works, hence his novel 2001 which was released after the film.By the standards the Academy is following, the problem here is the main characters of this film were created for another another medium and the entire film is trading on our perceptions, knowledge and familiarity with said characters.
2001 started as a movie and Clark decided to write the novel adaption after the script was done and it was published after the movie was released. If you want to be nit picky, Clark did say the story was inspired by his short story “The Sentinel” but since he wrote that too it’s not a big deal.
Yeah I don’t understand why many people have seemed to take it as a slight that Barbie is classified as ‘adapted’ vs ‘original’. I think it is like you said, some people are a little overly invested in the film.
I think one downside of getting this invested in Barbie’s award chances is that it is bound to make people who care about the movie get disheartened. The movie made a fucking fortune. It was beloved by critics and audiences alike. A sequel is a near-guarantee. If you loved Barbie, and you’re excited that the public embraced a movie with a female lead and female director that doesn’t fit the usual Hollywood mold, take the win!Instead, come March, we’re likely to see a bunch of laments about how Barbie just doesn’t get respect as, say, Killers of the Flower Moon wins Best Picture. And suddenly, a big success story is going to be another depressing story that leaves people feeling let down.
Dare I compare Barbie ultras with Marvel stans? For some fans, it’s just never enough, and anything short of universal praise and adoration is deemed as an insult. (I love Barbie and Marvel movies fyi)
Yeah. A few years ago, this site was obsessed with whether Black Panther was being slighted by the various awards, and it had much of the same quality. Like Barbie it was a movie that was a huge critical and commercial success, that resonated deeply with moviegoers in general and one underserved demographics in particular. By any reasonable measure, the movie was an astonishing win.And yes, the site spent much of March of that year trying to be as mopey about Black Panther as possible.
Killers is going to get a big bump because the book itself is incredible. I haven’t seen the movie yet but it seems like that kind of prestige tends to rub off on adaptations (unless they’re complete and widely acknowledged botch jobs).
That’s an unfair comparison. Yes, you’ve read Killers of the Flower Moon, and it’s great. But have you read Barbie: I Can Be a Farm Vet?https://www.amazon.com/Farm-Barbie-Step-into-Reading/dp/1101932457/ref=sr_1_8?keywords=barbie+book&qid=1704392715&sr=8-8
Just got it for Christmas and it’s on the night stand, next in line after The Amplified Come As You Are: The Story of Nirvana!
Yeah – it’s a very clever twist on a well-established character, even if that character started as a toy. There ARE Barbie cartoons and the like.
“It’s an adaptation of something that already existed”But it’s not. It’s not an adaptation of the doll. The doll hasn’t been changed at all. An adaptation of Barbie would be if they made a new doll out of her or if they made her into a racecar and sold her. Adapted screenplay means an adapted story. A doll isn’t a story. A lego isn’t a story. I’m not even sure I agree with sequels counting as adapted screenplays. They are original stories, but I’ll allow that one is at least arguable. How is Oppenheimer, which is based on a real person, get to be original while Barbie, based on a real doll, is not? They had to come up with a lot less of the story for Oppenheimer since they had his whole life to go off of.
My Barbie The Car?
First of all, Oppenheimer doesn’t get to be in the Original category —it’s adapted. But that’s not because it’s based on a real person’s life. It’s because it’s based on the book American Prometheus.
That’s true; I misread. What was the second of all?
It’s adapted because it’s based on a book, not because it’s based on a real person’s life.
Oppie was nominated for a whole slew of Adapted Screenplay awards.
“Adapted screenplay means an adapted story.”
Per the definition listed by the Academy: An adapted screenplay is a screenplay that is based on pre-existing material.
“How is Oppenheimer, which is based on a real person, get to be original while Barbie, based on a real doll, is not”
Oppenheimer is also classified as an adapted screenplay because it is based on pre-existing material (in this case a biography)
“I’m not even sure I agree with sequels counting as adapted screenplays.”
I don’t know what to tell you man. These have been the rules forever, nothing has changed and ‘Barbie’ is not suddenly slighted for being in an Adapted category.
But lots of things are pre-existing “material.” There are biopics that were nominated as original screenplays—is the person’s life not pre-existing material? Lots of things are “material.”“I don’t know what to tell you man.”You don’t have to tell me anything. lol I’m not expecting you to answer for it. I’m just a lawyer so inconsistencies bother me. They may have been the rules forever, but don’t seem to have been uniformly applied. I’m not even saying the movie itself was “slighted.” An Oscar is an Oscar and that’s great for them if it wins either, but I do think that if I wrote this story and someone called it “adapted” I personally would feel a bit slighted.
“I’m just a lawyer so inconsistencies bother me. They may have been the rules forever, but don’t seem to have been uniformly applied”
They have been AGGRESSIVELY applied. ‘Whiplash’ got classified as an adaptation because the director made a prior short film version to get the feature funded. LEGO movie was classified as Adapted. Glass Onion was adapted becauses it used the Benoit Blanc. Dozens of examples of them following the strict definition of the rules they wrote. It’s actually the most lawyer-y thing about the Academy haha.
“‘Whiplash’ got classified as an adaptation because the director made a prior short film version to get the feature funded.”lol That’s funny, but it does seem fair.I saw about Lego, which doesn’t seem fair, and I said above that I don’t think the sequels seem fair, but it is at least arguable. I’m not saying it hasn’t been applied this way in the past, just that there are times it doesn’t seem to have been applied this way at all. And that bugs me. But the Academy is allowed to bug me. I can tell you that there’s no law against that!
Pretty sure Oppenheimer will be adapted as it drew mainly from the biography American Prometheus.
*Edit – which several people already said, but I can’t seem to delete this comment now
Don’t fall for this. There IS NO controversy. There’s just a normal, boring thing that happened that an entertainment blog decided to cover and maybe if they position it just right and agitate enough people, the blog will birth a controversy and then they can cover it for weeks and generate the content and the clicks and the revenue. It’s all a fugazi.
It’s headache inducing if you get too far into the weeds. “Barbie” is adapted because she’s from a toy. “Maverick” is adapted because it is based on characters that existed in previous works. “Oppenheimer” because it’s based on a real person.“May – December” however, is original despite being based on actual humans. I’m guessing that because there’s a small subset that they could draw from in their adaptation of the story (rather than one single person) they get to be ‘original’.
Barbie is an adaptation of a pre-existing IP, not unlike anything else based on a superhero or science fiction concept. I think they’re bristling at the concept of being called unoriginal when it’s wildly original, but the IP got butts in the seats, and the IP is literally the name of the movie and the protagonist. They can be annoyed, but it’s almost absurdly clear from here at least.
Not too mention the plot of the movie only exists because it’s a reflection on what Barbie means in a feminist context. Absolutely nothing original about it.
The reflection is original.
Not really. There’s quite a bit of feminist literature on Barbie that existed before the movie.
Name the comic that Joker was adapted from. And yet, its nomination was for adapted screenplay. See how easy and even obvious that is?
It was an adaptation of Taxi Driver and King of Comedy.
Did Robbie Robertson do the score?
Don’t forget Network.
“Name the comic that Joker was adapted from.”
There are 70 years of comics featuring the Joker.
I like that “explaining the rules for what constitutes ‘adaptation’” has become another one of our endlessly repeating, annual awards season conversations. It can sit comfortably alongside “mainstream audiences didn’t see a lot of these. is that bad?” and “boy, those nominees sure are white.”Of course, the only conversation that really matters is “Award shows are inherently silly and we should probably ignore the whole thing.”
Of course, the only conversation that really matters is “Award shows are inherently silly and we should probably ignore the whole thing.”Philosophers and political scientists have been saying this about capitalism and the American electoral system for centuries but it doesn’t remove their spheres of influence.
Is it disadvantageous to be nominated for adapted screenplay this year? I mean, seriously, I would think the bigger headline is that a movie about Barbie doll(s) walking the earth is nominated for an Oscar.
It is. If it were in OG screenplay it was expected to walk away with the statue. Putting it in adapted puts it up against both Oppenheimer and Killers of the Flower Moon
Original Screenplay was their best shot at a top tier Oscar for Barbie. Oh sure it’ll get token nominations, but the film has slim chances I think of winning in most categories. For one, it’s lost momentum going into the awards season. It didn’t make a lot of the top ten lists, not because critics are turning on it or reevaluating it, but because this year was stacked with really strong films. It’s shallow to admit, but I think a lot of people just don’t want to admit a film about a Mattel toy into their lists of favorites.As far as acting, Ryan Gosling might have a shot at winning Best Supporting Actor, but Robert Downey Jr. has more momentum, and it will be as much in recognition of his whole career, and how he turned his life around after some pretty dark times. I don’t see anyone else winning in the acting categories. Robbie will get nommed, but Lily Gladstone has all the momentum here. In the directing category, I think Scorsese is going to win. Because he’s near the end of his career, and the Academy will err on the side wanting to recognize him one more time. Like Downey, it will be as much a lifetime achievement award. Best Picture, I think it is up in the air, but likely between Flower Moon and Oppenheimer. Probably the latter, because it checks all the right boxes, in terms of the films the Academy likes to honor, and it WAS a giant hit, so they can plausibly deny being out of touch with audience tastes. At the end of the day, I think Barbie and Gerwig will be hamstringed by the fact that, again, it’s a movie about a Mattel property. Was it a terrific film. Yes. But it’s still a brandbuilding film, and the Academy is still caught up in its own drive to recognize “serious” films. Which leaves the screenwriting categories. As I said in a post further up, Original Screenplay was Gerwig and Baumbach’s best chance, because it’s rather weak this year, and they were banking on a win here because the Academy loves to use screenwriting categories as consolation prizes. But that door is now closed, and they’re up against Christopher Nolan’s screenplay for Oppenheimer, and I’m afraid it just doesn’t stand much of a chance in that regard, because the film was a big hit, it was more popular with audiences, it’s the kind of prestige film that the Academy loves, a lot of voters have been wanting to make up for doing him dirty in ‘08 by shunning The Dark Knight, and most importantly, it was the best screenplay of the year. Barbie was great because of Gerwig’s direction, and the commitment of the actors to bring the story to life. But the screenplay itself had story problems, namely the subplot with Will Ferrell that was wholly uncessary and felt like a sop to Mattel corporate. I think on a certain level, the Academy voters feel like Gerwig can do better, and they’re waiting to see if her turn to mainstream big budget projects will be a good turn or a bad turn. They want to recognize her. They will recognize her. I just don’t think they want Barbie to be that recognition.
I’d say there’s a chance Oppenheimer/American Prometheus and Killers split the ticket, with Barbie benefiting by virtue of being so different.
That had occurred to me, but I think in this case the Academy voters will be inclined to spread their votes around, to throw their weight being Scorsese in the directing category, where he has his best chance, which will free them up to give Nolan screenwriting. This on top of the screenplay for Oppenheimer being a really remarkable job, condensing incredibly complex, nuanced details into a story that winds up moving incredibly deftly. It’s so good, that I don’t think voters will have spend much time debating who to vote for.
“It’s shallow to admit, but I think a lot of people just don’t want to admit a film about a Mattel toy into their lists of favorites.”It was one of my favorite movies. I don’t think it was one of the best movies. Why is it so difficult for people to separate their personal taste or likes from more objective ways of evaluating things.Barbie was a ton of fun. It was also the movie equivalent of a YA novel.
I suppose I don’t see why there should be a difference. If a film is your favorite, why should you be afraid to say it is the best? Conversely, why should you be forced to concede a film is the best, while not favoring it personally? Casablanca for example, I find to be terribly dull, and I would name a half dozen other films by Michael Curtiz that I like more, and think are better. That film wouldn’t even make my top one hundred. The distinction that is more crucial, is to acknowledging the validity of other people’s feelings. Many adore Casablanca, and I do not fault them for liking it. It’s just on a personal level for me, I do not favor it, and would not place it highly.
I’m really curious how Barbie is going to do – it was a monster hit, and recent Best Picture winners have been a weird bunch. A big historical movie hasn’t won in a decade – although I guess it’s been even longer since a comedy did.
Honestly I think it will get a lot of noms, but won’t win much. At the end of the day it was a big money maker, but I don’t think so many regarded it as a major achievement, and certainly not an artistic step forward for Gerwig. If I had to wager, I’d say it would win for best original song. Maybe production design and costumes. But it won’t score outside of the technical categories.
Best Picture:Ben HurQuo VadisTen Commandments
This is about Best Adapted Screenplay vs Best Original Screenplay. Ben Hur was nominated for Adapted. The others weren’t nominated for either.
Oops.
Is The Bible in the public domain?
Nobody cares.To clarify I don’t mean that nobody cares about the Barbie film I loved it. I mean nobody cares about this newswire. Why don’t you guys post another slide show round-up with your own newswires (that we’re not allowed to comment on lolz) if you have nothing else to write about?
I have no problem with this given their criteria and precedent. But it makes me wonder why it only seems to be fictional characters who are considered adaptations. Why not Tar or King Richard?
Lydia Tar isn’t a real person.
Well, that explains that one.
“But it makes me wonder why it only seems to be fictional characters who are considered adaptations.”
They aren’t. If a movie is based on a non-fiction book, it is an adaptation. Like how Oppenheimer is adapted from a book.“Why not Tar or King Richard?”
Lydia Tar isn’t a real person, and Richard Williams isn’t “previously established material”.
If there’s a writing credit that says, “Based on characters created by” or “based on the toy created by” then it’s an adaptation because it’s based on someone else’s creation. But no one created the Williams’ sisters’ dad except his parents.
Just goes to show how much the Oscars really care about good movies.
How so?
Honestly just because I think the Oscars and other award shows are dumb as hell and my Thursday morning snark wasn’t fired up yet. I’ll think of a better quip soon.
Yeah, set that one aside for a couple of hours and come back to it later. No points off for a first draft.
Something something Hollywoo people patting themselves on the back…
OK now you’re just phoning it in.
I can’t believe we still can’t stop talking about this mediocre fuckin’ movie
I watched it last week and it was meh. I think all the hype I have seen about it watered it down for me.
It was a fine fun movie in a time were many movies are overly serious, pretentious or murderous. Also it triggers so many fragile men so their is joy in that so people will keep talking.
It WAS fun until it got overly serious and pretentious in the third act. Just because the message was 1000% correct doesn’t mean it was good at conveying that message.
I enjoyed it! I laughed a lot! It was fine! I agreed with its message! But everybody keeps talking about it like it’s Important Cinema or some shit. But I guess people said that about Crash too.
and crash was forgotten quickly.
I remember
I never understood what was so important about people fucking cars or whatever the hell the point of that movie was
I think most people saw Crash as obnoxiously heavy-handed and pandering well before it was nominated for any awards, a perspective compounded by its BP win.
Newsflash asshole: opinions vary. Stop acting like your opinion is truth.
Do you have a gun pointed at your stupid head that made you click?
Has anyone else noticed that the writing on the site has rebounded a little so far this year? Not to jinx it but we are getting more thoughtful takes and I think I have seen fewer obvious typos? Pray god the AV Club is coming back, we could use it, and now that people don’t trust Rolling Stone anymore would be a great time to beef up the music department again.The push to be in original screenplay for Oscar was very unlikely to work but they put everything they could into it to avoid Oppenheimer. However, when you are adapting, you are adapting source material, not source characters. If a Star Wars movie is based on a Star Wars novel, it was adapted. The novel was not an adaptation. If a Star Wars movie has Han Solo being railed by a bantha, and there are no Star Wars novels where Han Solo was railed by a bantha, it was not adapted from anything. That isn’t how the Academy defines “adapted” because they define it incorrectly. Other people have noted: what about biopics that are not based on biographies? People say “his life story was adapted into a biopic” so why isn’t it “adapted”…there is no explanation. The Lego Movie is doubly puzzling because as far as I know Wildstyle wasn’t previously a lego-character, there is no preexisting material except the shape of blocks with nubs. Dr. Strangelove “adapted” a serious source as a farce, adapted. Winnie the Pooh Blood and Honey, adapted. For true madness ask why The Martian and May December are comedies for the Golden Globes.Here is an example: if the Oscars were given away in Elizabethan England, Shakespeare’s Henry IV would have been in “adapted” because it draws from histories written by Holinshed despite that Falstaff is made up. His other plays draw from Herodotus and from Plutarch’s “Lives” despite that those were often the only source of the actual life histories anyone knew, other than the bible. Whoops part of Much Ado About Nothing comes from the poem Orlando Furioso, adapted. Whoops The Tempest was based partly on Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus, adapted. Richard III was adapted from Holinshed and other sources, but Shakespeare intentionally fudged everything to make Richard a villain, there is just as much evidence that Henry VII killed the kids in the tower…still adapted. His play “The Merry Wives of Windsor,” a shitty sex farce also starring Falstaff (and of course a huge hit), would have been “adapted” also because Shakespeare took his own made up tragicomic-Falstaff character and plugged him into a “romp” cross between “Norbit” and “Madea”—so Falstaff in history, adapted, Falstaff in sex farce, also adapted. There are very few Shakespeare plays that would qualify as original under the Academy’s definition.
I actually made a similar observation late last fall, though the site definitely slipped into clickbait/slideshow mode later in the year. Surely there are still writers out there who want good, thoughtful work for their portfolios (especially freelancers). Clickbait blog posts can be written by high schoolers. I think what’s largely been lost is a generation of writers who knew movies, music, TV, books inside and out. All the research in the world can’t replace having lived through original release dates. Some of the best long-form and serialized pop culture journalism I’ve ever read was on this site. What Ever Happened to Alternative Nation? and My Year of Flops come to mind.
It’s a tiny spike on an otherwise flatlining heart monitor, but I have also noticed a few articles here recently that have some of the depth and intellectual vigour of the old AV Club. I don’t know if it’s a trend they can keep up in the current media landscape, but I hope so.
I thought it was just an honor to be nominated. Why does anyone care about what category its in? Whether it wins or not it made a ton of money and near universal acclaim. Is the opinion of the people who thought Green Book was worthy of best picture all that important?
it hasn’t been nominated.
It will be.
It’s literally because the original screenplay category this year is weak and if it could have been squished in there it might have won. If that category was stronger no one from AVC to Judd Apatow would have said shit.
How could May December be in the Best Original Screenplay category when it’s based on a story that reflects on existing characters and tabloid articles… Shouldn’t that be Adapted too?
For me the big takeaway here is that Adapted Screenplay is apparently a lesser, undesirable Oscar.
I mean I know it’s actually that there’s more competition in Adapted than in Original this year, but the vibe being presented by everyone is that an Adapted nod is a straight up insult.