1961: Judgment at Nuremberg

Screenplay by Abby Mann
Adapted from the teleplay Judgment at Nuremberg by Abby Mann

Four men are accused of crimes against humanity for their involvement in the judiciary of Nazi Germany. A tribunal of three American judges must determine to what degree these German judges and prosecutors were responsible for the actions carried out by others under their orders, given that they were merely upholding the law of the land. Meanwhile, the political tide is shifting, and Americans are becoming less concerned with punishing Nazis and more concerned with fighting Communists, creating pressure on the judges to be lenient, despite condemning evidence.

Though the subject matter is obviously very different, this adaptation reminded me a lot of Marty, the only previous Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar winner that was based on a teleplay. In both cases, the teleplay and screenplay were written by the same person, and in both cases the movie was about twice as long as the TV version. Like Marty, Judgment at Nuremberg also had several cast members playing the same role in both versions: Maximilian Schell played the defense attorney in both, although his character's name was different, and two of the Nazis on trial were played by the same actor in both. Almost all of the lines from the teleplay were in the feature film, so most of the changes were additions, with a few notable exceptions.

The TV version begins with footage from earlier Nuremberg trials, with narration explaining what had happened and that people were getting tired of them. This is not shown in the feature film, but the audience gets a clear picture of what's been happening from added dialogue between the characters. Similarly, when the head judge is looking around Nuremberg, in the TV version there is footage of Hitler and the Nazis gathered where he's looking, whereas in the movie we hear the remembered Nazis without seeing them. The historical footage is quite powerful in the original, but I feel like not seeing any early on gives the footage of the Holocaust survivors more power later in the movie.

There were only two other major changes I noticed that weren't additions. In the original version, Chief Judge Haywood is married, and his wife appears briefly, whereas in the movie he's a widower. I assume this was changed to facilitate the addition of Mrs. Bertholt, whose husband was executed as a result of an earlier trial. Haywood spends a lot of time with her in the movie, and even though no romance ensues, this would have been a little weird if he was married. Her friendship provides yet another temptation for Haywood to be lenient with the men on trial, which adds to the tension of the story. The second change comes toward the end, so to avoid spoiling too much I'll just say that the tribunal is slightly harsher on the defendants in the feature film than in the original version. It's not actually that different, and it doesn't end up mattering very much, but I found it rather fascinating that Movie Haywood has even more pressures to be lenient than TV Haywood, and yet ends up being less so.

I thought the TV version was very well done, but I also thought many of the movie's additions greatly enhanced the story, like the German servants who tremblingly protest that they had no idea what was going on, and a couple of added scenes of the defendants interacting outside the courtroom. The main defendant, Ernst Janning, doesn't say or do much for most of the TV movie, which definitely contributes to the shock factor of his outburst toward the defense attorney, but I also liked how we got to know him just slightly more in the feature film before that scene. Overall, both versions tell the story very well, and make powerful statements about humanity and society, so I would highly recommend both of them. The TV version can be found on YouTube, complete with the added bonus of the original commercials from 1959.

Coming up next is another politically charged courtroom drama, albeit a very different one: To Kill a Mockingbird, based on the novel by Harper Lee

1960: Elmer Gantry

Screenplay by Richard Brooks
Adapted from the novel Elmer Gantry by Sinclair Lewis

The title character is an ambitious and hypocritical preacher who rises to fame and power with a golden tongue, saving souls in public while ruining lives in private.

I am utterly fascinated by this adaptation. I can practically hear the screenwriter's pitch: "Yes, I know the story seems like a blatant, satirical attack on Christianity in America, and obviously no one wants that, but what if in the movie...we were only attacking revivals?" Even if Richard Brooks never actually said that, that's pretty much what it boils down to. In both versions, Elmer was studying to be a minister when he was kicked out of school, but in the book it was after he was ordained. In both versions, Elmer serves as an evangelist with Sharon Falconer, but, though she leaves his life in the same way, what he does next is completely different. The book shows him rising through the ranks of the Methodist church; the movie just ends there with him giving up evangelism. Book Elmer serves many churches; film Elmer only serves Sharon Falconer's revivals. Though Sharon does have a significant impact on Elmer's life in the book, they're only together for a relatively brief period of time, whereas she's in most of the movie. The film also adds several lines of characters wondering why people need revivals when they can just go to church; in other words, it distances churches from people like Elmer Gantry. Granted, the film does show a bit of hypocrisy on the part of other, more traditional ministers, but this is very slight compared to the book.

Then there's the character of Jim Lefferts. In the book, he's Elmer's college friend, a self-proclaimed atheist who walks out of his life when Elmer decides to pursue a career in ministry. In the movie, he's a skeptic reporter who follows Elmer and Sharon around, and at first tries to make them look bad, but later becomes more of an ally. The Jim of the movie never says he's an atheist, and interestingly, loses an argument with Elmer because he can't decide whether or not he believes that Jesus was divine. In both versions, Jim is one of the least hypocritical characters, but in the book he's firmly anti-Christianity, whereas in the movie, while he isn't exactly a Christian, he isn't exactly not a Christian either. The film is careful not to portray atheism in too positive of a light. Elmer even has a line when he's criticizing Jim in which he accuses him of blindly following several atheistic writers, and he includes Sinclair Lewis. I couldn't quite decide if this was a joking or serious attempt to distance the film from the original material, but I enjoyed it either way.

While most of the significant changes seem to serve the purpose of becoming more palatable to a Christian audience, the film also makes several fascinating changes to the way women and sex are portrayed. In both versions, Elmer is a major womanizer. The first time this really gets him into trouble is when he is still a student preacher and falls for a deacon's daughter named Lulu. In the book, they have a thing for a while, but then he gets annoyed with her, and she really wants him to marry her (she even tries to convince him she's pregnant at one point). Someone sees them together, which kind of forces Elmer to propose, but he manages to push her towards this other guy and arrange it so that people find them together and she ends up having to marry him instead. Then, much later, when Elmer is married to somebody else whom he doesn't even like (who doesn't exist in the movie), Lulu comes back into his life, and they have an affair for a while until he gets tired of her and meets someone else. Unfortunately for him, that someone else is setting him up so she can blackmail him later. In the movie, on the other hand, Elmer is kicked out of school for being caught having sex with Lulu in the church (in the book he was kicked out for an unrelated reason). Instead of being forced to marry someone else, movie Lulu becomes a prostitute, who comes back into Elmer's life when he's trying to eliminate vice from the city (which is also something that happens in the book, but Lulu is not involved). Then Lulu is the one who tries to blackmail him, but she has a change of heart when she realizes she's still in love with him. For the most part, I don't really object to these changes to Lulu's character; I think they work pretty well in the movie. In the novel Lulu is portrayed as weak and whiny, so I like that she's more empowered in the film.

On the other hand, I kind of hate some of the changes made to Sharon's character. As I mentioned earlier, she's not actually in very much of the book, but she has a huge impact on Elmer's life, mainly because she's the only woman he ever respects, with the possible exception of his mother. She insists that he stop smoking and drinking, which in the book he does for the rest of his life; in the movie he only sort of gives them up. Novel Sharon makes it clear that she appreciates Elmer's talents, but remains in charge; film Sharon basically puts him in charge and frequently talks about how much she needs him. In the book, Elmer intends to seduce her, but ends up being seduced himself. In the movie, he talks her into sleeping with him. I actually said, "Ew, no" out loud multiple times during that scene, mostly because in the book she's so clearly the dominant personality in their relationship, and the movie makes her seem like a naive little girl being guided by a strong man of the world. Of all the myriad changes that clearly intentionally altered the tone of the story, that's the one I most objected to. Overall, Sharon's character was fairly consistent, but the movie makes her significantly weaker for no good reason.

I don't mean to imply that this isn't a good movie because it is. I just have trouble believing that it was truly the best adapted screenplay of that year. I think Sinclair Lewis would have considered the filmmakers cowardly for shying away from some of his more biting satire, and for dis-empowering his strongest female character. However, given the controversial nature of the story and that this was 1960, I'm almost surprised that the adaptation wasn't even less faithful.

Next up: Judgment at Nuremberg, the second movie adapted from a teleplay to win this award.

1959: Room at the Top

Screenplay by Neil Paterson
Adapted from the novel Room at the Top by John Braine

Ambitious, young Joe Lampton moves from his small, poor hometown to a more affluent place, where he hopes to rise to a higher class. It looks like his dreams might come true when he meets beautiful Susan Brown, the 19-year-old daughter of an extremely wealthy business owner. True, she has a boyfriend, but Joe sees that as only a minor setback. Then Joe falls for older, sexy, married Alice Aisgill, which becomes more of a major setback.

I was not looking forward to revisiting this story, since when I watched it before during my Best Actress project, I did not particularly enjoy the film. After reading the book and re-watching the movie, I must say that I think the book is significantly better, which is odd because on the whole it's a relatively faithful adaptation. However, some of the seemingly minor changes end up altering the characters and story in surprisingly drastic ways, at least in my interpretation.

One of the biggest differences is in the way the story is told. The book is written in first person, from the perspective of Joe Lampton ten years later. The story depicts a crucial turning point in his life, and several times throughout the book he remarks on the way he could have done things differently. He sounds as though he's ultimately happy with the decisions he made and where he ended up in life, but with a touch of nostalgia, and even perhaps a hint of regret. The film, on the other hand, gives us nothing from future Joe: no scenes of his later life, no voice-over narration, nothing. The film adds a scene at the end that was merely implied in the book, but it gives a more bleak picture of his future than the book does. I think the story greatly benefits from reflections made by a Joe who has distanced himself from its events. The first time I watched the movie I couldn't fathom how Joe could live with himself; the book makes that a lot clearer.

Partly because of the narration, the book version of Joe is significantly more understandable and likable than the film version. It helps that he's justifying his own actions, but there's also something else that may seem small but makes all the difference: in the book he loves Susan; in the movie he doesn't. Of course, in both versions it's clear he loves Alice more, but even in that they differ because the movie makes his preference more about sex than love. Skip the rest of this paragraph if you don't want spoilers. Basically, in both versions, Joe has a passionate affair with Alice, which starts as a friends with benefits arrangement, but turns into love. They get to the point where, after a beautiful vacation together, Alice is about to ask her husband for a divorce, when Joe changes his mind and marries Susan instead. This decision is influenced by the fact that Susan is pregnant with his child, after they slept together once. Here's the difference: in the book, Joe only sleeps with Susan after he's determined that he's not going to marry Alice. At first he stops seeing Susan for awhile, then has his vacation with Alice, and then his friend is like, "Dude, you don't want to marry someone who cheats on her husband, oh and btw she had an affair with that guy Susan was dating, and probably lots of other people." So he decides to go back to Susan, and only after that is their relationship consummated. True, he could have handled the situation better (he doesn't officially break up with Alice right away), but it's understandable. Compare that to the movie, in which he sleeps with Susan before his vacation with Alice. And then, I mean, it's not super explicit, but he's basically like, "Wow, she's terrible at sex compared to Alice," and that's when he sets up the vacation. And then he decides he wants to be rich so he's going to marry Susan instead, especially once he finds out she's pregnant. To me, this makes him way more of a jerk in the movie than in the book.

Naturally there are several other changes. Joe has a close friend named Charles, who in the book is from his hometown and mainly shows up in flashbacks, but in the movie is a new friend from the new town. The movie adds a whole section about Susan's father trying to get Joe a job back in his hometown so he'll leave Susan alone; in the book he doesn't put in that much effort to thwart Joe. But none of these other changes bothered me as much as switching the order of his affairs to make him more of a jerk. Maybe the movie was trying to show that cold ambition can't make you happy? Or maybe the screen writer got a different picture of Joe from the novel than I did? Either way, I'm kind of glad I read the book, since it gave me an entirely different perspective on the story.

Whew, the 1950s sure took me a long time to get through! The 1960s will begin with Elmer Gantry, based on the novel by Sinclair Lewis, so stay tuned.

1958: Gigi

Screenplay by Alan Jay Lerner
Adapted from the novella Gigi by Colette

Gigi is being trained by her grandmother and great-aunt to become a courtesan. She is friends with a notorious playboy named Gaston who is falling in love with her. Though Gigi likes Gaston very much, she's not convinced that she wants to become his mistress.

As I mentioned seven years ago when I blogged about this movie before, I find this story incredibly disturbing. I particularly objected to the character of Gaston's uncle, who sings, "Thank heaven for little girls, for little girls are more objectified by old men every day," or something like that. So I was not unhappy that this character does not appear in the novella at all. It's briefly mentioned that Gigi's grandmother had a thing with one of Gaston's older relatives, and I guess Alan Jay Lerner decided to run with that. I do enjoy the song between the uncle and the grandmother, but otherwise, I could have done without that addition. It almost felt like Lerner didn't think there were enough male characters in the original story, so he needed to add a creepy old guy. Either that or he just wanted to make the movie more disturbing than the book.

However, to be fair there are some ways in which the original story is more disturbing than the film. I guess you can tell that Gigi is supposed to be pretty young in the movie, but I don't think they ever say her exact age. Leslie Caron was in her late 20s when she played her, so the age difference between her and Gaston is not nearly as striking as in the original story, in which she's 15 and he's in his early 30s. Because of this, and its lack of songs, I feel like it's more readily apparent that the book is supposed to be disturbing. The movie probably is, too, but it almost feels like it's trying to brush over the darker themes with lighthearted musical numbers, which doesn't really work for me. Maybe that's the point, but I don't really like it.

Apart from the songs, the added uncle, and the ambiguity of Gigi's age, the movie is actually surprisingly similar to the book. Most of the novella is included in the film, apart from a few of the more raunchy lines of dialogue that Hollywood still wasn't ready for yet. Of course, the novella is not very long, so several scenes were added for the movie. When the original story begins, Gaston has just split up with his latest girlfriend, whereas that doesn't happen until around the middle of the film. Seeing this play out instead of just hearing about it after the fact definitely adds to the story, so I think that was a wise change. The book ends much more quickly than the movie, pretty much going straight from "I'd rather be miserable with you than without you" to Gaston's proposal. The movie adds this whole thing where they go out together and he takes her back and she gets all upset, and then he proposes, and it's like, why do you want to marry him? He just treated you terribly! So that addition was kind of unnecessary. But on the whole, as far as adaptations go, this one actually isn't that bad. I just still don't think this movie deserved nine Oscars. Sorry.

Next up: Room at the Top, based on the novel by John Braine, for which Simone Signoret won Best Actress, and about which I wrote a little over two years ago, "I will not be re-visiting this movie any time soon." Great. Why am I doing this again?

1957: The Bridge on the River Kwai

Screenplay by Carl Foreman and Michael Wilson (originally credited to Pierre Boulle, as both screenplay writers were blacklisted at the time)
Adapted from the novel The Bridge over the River Kwai by Pierre Boulle

During World War II, British POWs are forced to build a Japanese railway from Burma to Singapore. Colonel Nicholson is a proud, rule-following Englishman who has been brought to a prison camp with his men following orders to surrender. After a lengthy battle with the camp's warden, Colonel Saito, about whether officers should be forced to work alongside their men, Nicholson sets out to build the best bridge possible as a demonstration of British skill. Meanwhile, a specialized team of Allied soldiers is sent to blow up the bridge.

This is another relatively short novel adapted into a long movie, but it's significantly better than the previous year's winner. The added length helps the film give a better feel for how much time has passed than the book did. Most of the prison camp scenes are very faithful to the book. Even when details are changed, such as the exact methods of torture Saito uses to try to break Nicholson, those parts are still very much in the spirit of the original story.

On the other hand, the demolition team is completely different, particularly the character of Shears. In the book, he's a British major from Force 316 who is basically in charge of the mission and is often referred to as Number One. In the film, he's from the American navy, and is actually in the prison camp when Nicholson arrives. Movie Shears manages to escape from the camp, after which he reluctantly joins Force 316 to help them find the bridge, after it's revealed that he's been impersonating an officer. So in the book, he's very focused on finding and destroying the bridge, whereas in the movie he's cynical and sarcastic and always trying to find a way out of returning to the prison camp he managed to escape from. This completely changes the dynamic of the team. I think both versions work fine, but I'd be interested to know what prompted this change. Did they just really want William Holden to have a big role in this movie, and he couldn't or wouldn't do a convincing British accent? Who knows? The other characters in the team are also changed, though not as drastically. Joyce is basically the same inexperienced but eager young soldier, although in the film he's Canadian instead of British. Also, the film adds a scene when he's faced with killing a Japanese soldier and can't do it, which takes the place of the part in the book after the river's gone down and he realizes he's probably going to have to kill someone and is trying to psych himself up for it. This additional scene in the film also results in the third team member, Warden, being shot in the foot, which gives him an excuse for remaining farther away from the bridge. In the film, that was just always the plan. Also the film adds a fourth member of the team who dies during the parachute drop, which did not happen in the book.

Perhaps the most significant change, however, is the ending. I feel like most people have probably seen this movie (if you haven't you should), but skip the rest of this paragraph if you don't want any 60-year-old spoilers. Fascinatingly, the climax is almost exactly the same except for one thing. Nicholson leads Saito to Joyce, who was waiting for the train to arrive before blowing up the bridge. Joyce kills Saito, then Nicholson yells for help and starts strangling Joyce. All of that happens in both versions. But the famous moment in the movie when Nicholson looks around, cries, "What have I done?" and then stumbles toward the detonator, and falls dramatically on top of it, demolishing his bridge as he dies? Yeah, that doesn't happen in the book. Warden had put some extra explosives on the track, so the train ends up going down, but the bridge remains intact with minimal damage. Book Nicholson dies without ever experiencing that change of heart. Personally, I prefer the movie version, although the book's is probably more consistent with Nicholson's character. I like to think that he still had some humanity inside that cold, mechanical exterior, even if that wasn't what the author of the book intended.

After the previous winner, I have to mention how refreshing it was to see actual Japanese actors cast in the role of Japanese characters. The book actually seemed more racist than the movie, repeatedly referring to the Japanese as stupid and inept and just generally inferior to Westerners. There is some of this in the movie, but the film version gives more of the impression that they're trying to prove how competent British soldiers were, rather than how incompetent the Japanese soldiers were. One change along these lines that I liked was the film had Saito fire the Japanese engineer on his own, whereas in the book he only did because Nicholson told him to. On the other hand, the book emphasizes that most of the well-qualified Japanese engineers were engaged elsewhere during the war, while the film kind of implies that the clueless guy at the camp was the best they had to offer. So it's a trade-off. Still, Sessue Hayakawa's performance as Saito is one of the highlights of the film, and letting an actor of color shine like that, even in the role of a villain, was extremely rare in 1950s Hollywood, so yay progress.

After this, one of my favorite Best Picture Winners, I have to go back to another of my least favorite Best Picture Winners, Gigi, based on the novella by Colette.

1956: Around the World in 80 Days

Screenplay by John Farrow, S. J. Perelman, and James Poe
Adapted from the novel Around the World in Eighty Days by Jules Verne

A prim and proper English gentleman named Phileas Fogg makes a wager that he can circumnavigate the globe in exactly 80 days, and immediately sets off with his new valet, Passepartout, to prove it. Unbeknownst to him, Fogg is pursued by a detective named Fix, who is convinced that Fogg robbed the Bank of England and is using this trip as an excuse to flee the country.

This might be the worst adaptation to have won this award so far. Not that the novel is the best book I've ever read, but it is far and away superior to the film. There are so many problems with the movie I hardly know where to start. It completely ruins the character of Passepartout. In the book he's a loyal, well-meaning but slightly clueless Frenchman. The movie turns him into a woman-chaser of ambiguous nationality. I guess he's Spanish, since he speaks Spanish, but sometimes he calls Fogg "Monsieur", so it's like, was he supposed to still be French with a Spanish accent? Speaking of which, the movie adds this whole section where the travelers take a hot air balloon in France, trying to get to Marseilles, but they end up in Spain where they have to waste an entire day fighting bulls. This scene is way too long, entirely unnecessary, somehow doesn't seem to put them behind schedule, and is not even remotely close to anything that happens in the book.

The Spanish detour is probably the most extreme example, but similar unnecessary additions occur throughout the film. Instead of Passepartout merely wandering into an Indian temple with his shoes on, he has to be chased in there after trying to bullfight a sacred cow (what is it with this movie and bullfighting?). Later they enter an American saloon for no reason and stay there way too long. Generally, when novels are adapted into screenplays, more scenes are cut than added. Obviously, some bits were cut in order to make way for these additions, but not nearly as many as necessary, resulting in a 3-hour long film adapted from a novel that's just over 300 pages. Compare that to one of the best adaptations, Gone with the Wind: that novel is over three times as long as this one, but the movie is only one and a third times as long. Not to mention that cutting out those few minor scenes from the book gives the movie possibly the worst pacing ever. The book doesn't have the best pacing, but at least it carefully tracks how long it takes to get to each milestone and how long they stay there and whether they've gained or lost time. In the film, one has no idea how much time is passing, which is odd since the 80-day deadline is crucial to the plot.

Even if it had been a decent adaptation, which I cannot stress enough that it wasn't, it would not have aged well, and not just because it's now laughable to think that it would take anywhere near that long to go around the world. The original book is quite racist, and uses a lot of problematic terms like "savages" to describe the native peoples in the lands the travelers cross. One might think that since the film was made over 80 years after the book was written, they might have found some way to make it less blatantly racist while still remaining faithful to the time in which it takes place. Unfortunately, this was the 1950s, and if anything, the movie is more racist than the book. I mean, the vast majority of the "native peoples" were very clearly white actors in makeup. I get that they wanted to put fun cameos of famous actors around the world, but this doesn't really work when all the famous actors are white. Shirley MacLaine is supposed to be Indian? Peter Lorre is supposed to be Chinese? I know this was 60 years ago, but still. They could have at least gotten actual people of color to play the extras, and I think maybe there were a couple, but for the most part, sadly no. This would be cringe-worthy enough if it was a good movie otherwise, but the fact that it's cringingly racist and a badly-paced, boring mess means I cannot recommend against it enough.

That being said, I feel that in fairness I must point out that this movie does have some of the best ending credits I've ever seen, brilliantly designed by the legendary Saul Bass. So if, you know, you ever end up having to watch it for a self-imposed Oscar project, you at least have that to look forward to. Personally, I'm going to make sure that, if I continue tackling different categories, I never pick another one that this movie won. I've had to watch it twice now; that is more than enough.

Up next: Best Picture Winner The Bridge on the River Kwai, based on the novel The Bridge over the River Kwai by Pierre Boulle. I'm not sure why they changed the preposition, but if that's the most unnecessary change it will be leaps and bounds ahead of this adaptation.

1955: Marty

Screenplay by Paddy Chayefsky
Adapted from the teleplay Marty by Paddy Chayefsky

Marty is a bachelor in his mid-30s. All his siblings are married, and people, especially his mother, are constantly pestering him to follow suit. To get them off his back, he grudgingly goes to a dance hall one night, where he meets a young woman named Clara who has just been horribly rejected by a blind date. Marty and Clara hit it off, but as soon as his friends and family find out, they realize that they actually want Marty to stay single.

This is an unusual adapted screenplay winner, since rather than being adapted from something in print form, this movie was based on something else that was filmed. The original was a 51-minute teleplay that was broadcast live on "The Philco Television Playhouse" on May 24, 1953; the adaptation came out two years later and was about 40 minutes longer. Since they were written by the same person, it should come as no surprise that the two versions are very similar. Most of the scenes in the original were adapted word-for-word into the movie. Even the cast is similar: Marty's mother, Aunt Catherine, and best friend Angie are played by the same three actors in both versions.

The changes that were made pretty much all improved the story. The TV version goes straight from Marty and Clara meeting at the dance hall to them at Marty's house, which is kind of abrupt. The audience hardly gets to see them interact at all, and finds out very little about Clara, before he tries to kiss her. In the movie, they go for a walk and to a restaurant together, and we see them get to know each other first. This makes the audience believe in their relationship more, which makes for a much more intriguing story. The remake also has time to further develop some of the secondary characters, particularly Marty's cousin and his wife, who are only in one scene of the original but come back multiple times in the adaptation. These and other additions significantly improve the pacing. The feature film may be almost twice as long as the teleplay, but it certainly doesn't feel like it. It's a fairly simple story, so it didn't need to be too long, but it definitely benefited from that extra 40 minutes that changing the format allowed.

I don't mean to imply that the original version is bad; it's still a sweet, well-told story. But the movie is definitely better. Rather than an original versus a remake, this felt more like comparing an earlier draft with the final draft of the same script. One would hope and expect that a draft written two years later by the same person would be an improvement on the original, and in this case, one would not be disappointed.

Coming up next: yet another Best Picture winner, Around the World in 80 Days, based on the novel by Jules Verne