1997: L.A. Confidential

Screenplay by Curtis Hanson & Brian Helgeland
Adapted from the novel L.A. Confidential by James Ellroy

Three cops in 1950s Los Angeles - brainy, ambitious Ed Exley; brawny, vengeful Bud White; and flashy, glory-driven Jack Vincennes - each separately become entangled in a web of seemingly unrelated crimes. Despite their differences and rivalries, these three must work together to figure out exactly what's happening and how to stop it.

This must have been a very tricky adaptation to pull off. The novel is so long and its plot is so complex that any movie encompassing the entirety of it would have to be about eight hours long. Obviously, some of the story had to be omitted. However, everything is so carefully woven together in the novel that if anything was simply removed, the story would no longer make sense. Each elimination required modification in the remaining scenes to accommodate it. Since I had never seen this movie before, at first I kept yelling at the screen things like, "Wait, what?! That's not who was supposed to die then! What happened to this other character?" But after a while, I figured out what they were doing, and I kind of got on board with it. The novel does have an awful lot of characters, and I'm still not sure I fully understand exactly how all of them tied into what was going on, and I kept getting people mixed up. The movie has way fewer characters, so some of the people who stayed had to take on additional roles. For example, in the novel, some random ex-cop was murdered in the Nite Owl Massacre, which was changed to Bud's former partner in the movie. Both versions include a Nite Owl victim having murdered someone else soon before being murdered himself, but in the book this is someone who was not a cop, whereas in the movie it's once again Bud's former partner. By modifying the story in this way, the movie is like the book in that everything is tied together, but the movie's web is much smaller and tighter than the novel's.

While for the most part, the film is consistent with, though not quite the same as, the book, there were a few changes that significantly altered things in a way that bothered me. The thing that I'm most annoyed about is what the movie did to Inez Soto. In the book, Inez Soto is super important. She has affairs with both Ed and Bud, she rebuilds her life despite suffering major trauma, and is one of the few characters you can actually consistently root for. In the movie, she's in two scenes and has like three lines. I don't even remember if they ever say her name; she's mostly just referred to as "the rape victim". Now, to be fair, since the movie killed off Ed's dad, and much of Inez's story is tied to Ed's dad's story in the book, a lot of what she does became unnecessary and irrelevant. I just couldn't help noticing that the woman of color's role was drastically reduced, while Lynn, the Veronica Lake look-alike, got to do almost everything on screen that she did on the page. Typical Hollywood.

There were definitely aspects of both the book and the movie that I strongly disliked, but for the most part I found them interesting to read and watch. Despite being set over 60 years ago, the story is still disgustingly relevant. Much of it centers around policy brutality, particularly directed toward people of color, which is obviously still a major problem, and instead of trying to fix it, the powers that be insist on pretending they think the issue is about the national anthem. Then there's the character of the actor who, at least in the book, molests teenage boys, and everyone kind of knows about it but keeps it quiet. This isn't in the movie, but a certain actor who was recently exposed for doing that is, and I'm still cringing.

Next up: Gods and Monsters, based on the novel by Christopher Bram

1996: Sling Blade

Screenplay by Billy Bob Thornton
Adapted from the short film Some Folks Call It a Sling Blade written by Billy Bob Thornton

Abused, developmentally disabled Karl Childers has been in a psychiatric hospital since he was about 12, when he killed his mother and her lover. Now, he is set to be released, whether he's ready or not.

A couple of earlier winners were based on TV movies, but this is the first, and so far only, time when a Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar winner was based on a short film. As such, it shouldn't be surprising that the nature of this adaptation is completely different from any I've seen so far. The plot of the short was adapted into the first 20 minutes or so of the feature film, functioning as a prologue, and the remaining two hours of the movie reveal what comes after the short ends. The movie's opening credits don't even start until after the events of the short. A viewer could almost jump straight from the short to 20 minutes into the feature without even realizing it wasn't a continuous movie. The only differences that would really prevent this are that the short is in black and white while the feature is in color, and the director of the hospital, who comes back later in the feature, is played by a different actor. Billy Bob Thornton and J. T. Walsh play the only other two characters who come back in the feature in both versions.

The short leaves viewers with two main questions: Can Karl make it in the outside world? and Will he kill again? The feature answers both those questions in a way that is both fascinating and perfectly reasonable given the way his character was established in the short. It feels as though Thornton knew exactly where he wanted to go with Karl Childers before he even wrote the short, and just needed a slightly larger budget to pull it off. So even though this movie contains about two hours of content that wasn't in the original at all, it's still one of the more faithful adaptations to win this award.

This is the second year in a row when the screenwriter who won this award also starred in the film they wrote, which is particularly interesting because I think those are the only two times that's ever happened. This is certainly the only time when someone has written both the original and the adaptation and also starred in both. Well done, Billy Bob Thornton.

Coming up next: L.A. Confidential, based on the novel by James Ellroy

1995: Sense and Sensibility

Screenplay by Emma Thompson
Adapted from the novel Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen

When Mr. Dashwood dies, his estate passes on to his son from his first marriage, leaving his second wife and three daughters essentially destitute. Soon afterward, the elder two daughters, practical Elinor and passionate Marianne, each fall in love, but their lack of fortune and a few other twists of fate place several obstacles in their paths to marriage.

As always when a novel is adapted into a feature film, several details had to be omitted. A few characters were completely eliminated, most notably Lady Middleton, whose husband is said to be a widower in the film, although she is very much alive in the book, and all of her children, as well as the elder Miss Steele, whose existence is never mentioned in the movie; Lucy is assumed to be an only child. Although their inclusion in the novel greatly enhanced its comedic value, they didn't really enhance the plot much, and the few ways in which they did were flawlessly transferred to other characters in the film. There were a couple of significant events in the book which did not take place in the movie, but a few other events were slightly altered to make them no longer necessary, which I thought was well done. For example (spoiler alert), in the book Willoughby shows up when Marianne is ill to explain himself to Elinor, whereas in the movie he doesn't, but earlier when Colonel Brandon tells her more details of Willoughby's villainy, the movie has him include some of Willoughby's justification, thereby eliminating the need for Willoughby's return.

The movie also added some things that weren't in the book that I appreciated. The third daughter, Margaret, is relatively unimportant in the novel, but the movie gives her more of a personality. Similarly, though the book makes it clear that Elinor likes Edward Ferrars at the beginning, it doesn't show why, at least to the extent that the movie does. The novel briefly describes his personality, but the film adds specific incidents to show what he's like, all of which are perfectly in line with the book's description. I find it particularly interesting that he is shown to interact with Margaret so much, since they were both somewhat underdeveloped in the novel. Furthermore, in the movie Edward is on the point of telling Elinor his secret before she moves away, whereas in the book Elinor doesn't have any idea until Lucy Steele springs it on her.

Overall, though the two versions have many differences, the characters and the heart of the story remain consistent, making this, in my opinion, definitely one of the better adaptations to have won this award. The eliminations didn't significantly detract from the story, and the additions enhanced it. Why can't all adaptations be this good?

Next up: Sling Blade, the first, and so far only, Best Adapted Screenplay winner that was based on a short film

1994: Forrest Gump

Screenplay by Eric Roth
Adapted from the novel Forrest Gump by Winston Groom

Forrest Gump, a man with a low IQ, has many adventures in the mid-20th century, many of which impact the world in ways that he doesn't understand or care about. His main concern is his love for his childhood sweetheart, Jenny.

Apart from this basic premise and some of the character names, the novel and film versions of Forrest Gump are barely recognizable as the same story. Most of the events of the book are not in the movie, and vice versa. In the book, Forrest saves Chairman Mao from drowning, travels to outer space, becomes a professional wrestler, and acts in a movie with Raquel Welch, among other things that aren't in the movie. In the film, Forrest had to have braces on his legs as a child, instigates the Watergate scandal, and runs across the country multiple times. Granted, there are a few similarities. In both versions, Forrest plays college football, is wounded in the Vietnam war (which leads him to become a famous ping pong player), and later starts a shrimping business to carry out the dream of his fallen war buddy, Bubba. However, the details are so different that even the events the two stories have in common seem different. In the book, Forrest flunks out of college after one term, whereas in the movie he graduates after five years. In the movie, Forrest saves Lieutenant Dan's life against his will; in the book, he doesn't meet Lieutenant Dan until they're both in the hospital. And book Forrest doesn't get around to starting his shrimping business until toward the end, while movie Forrest does so toward the middle. Interestingly, in the movie, the only person we see working with Forrest is Lieutenant Dan, but in the book, Forrest hires almost everyone he's encountered throughout his adventures except Lieutenant Dan.

It's not just the events that were changed; the characters themselves are completely different, especially Forrest Gump. The book is written in first person from his perspective, and he's constantly referring to himself as an idiot, while movie Forrest doesn't think of himself as stupid. Book Forrest is crude and vulgar, and his narration is full of swearing, racial slurs, and toilet humor. Movie Forrest exudes a childlike innocence that makes him seem oblivious but almost charming, which is a word that could never be used to describe book Forrest. Similarly, the character of Jenny is very different. In the book she seems pretty normal, but in the movie she has a messed up childhood which leads to a messed up adulthood. Unsurprisingly, since the characters are so different, the nature of their relationship is also very different. In the book, they spend some time living together, then they break up for a while, then get back together until he refuses to stop wrestling, at which point she leaves for good. In the movie, they're mostly just friends, but they do spend one night together, after which she runs away. In both versions (spoiler alert) Forrest finds out later that Jenny has a son and he's the father, but in the movie Forrest marries her when he finds out, and in the book Jenny has already married someone else. Also movie Jenny has contracted some sort of "mysterious virus" (i.e. AIDS), so she dies, which does not happen in the book.

Overall, the book is over-the-top ridiculous, while the movie is more serious, for the most part. Personally, I greatly prefer the movie, since it's a much sweeter story, but I can see how the book would appeal to other people.

Coming up: Six movies in a row I haven't blogged about before, beginning with Sense and Sensibility, based on the novel by Jane Austen.

1993: Schindler's List

Screenplay by Steven Zaillian
Adapted from the novel Schindler's Ark (aka Schindler's List) by Thomas Keneally

Oskar Schindler uses money, charisma, and influence over fellow Nazis to save 1,200 Jewish people from the Holocaust.

This book is considered a novel, but it's practically non-fiction. While it generally follows the narrative structure of a novel, it consists mainly of anecdotes that were related to the author by survivors. Keneally is quick to point out when different people's stories conflict, and often omits quotation marks from conversations to illustrate that no one really knows or remembers exactly what was said. When compared with the movie, the book seems even less like a novel, as the movie shows a much clearer picture of Schindler's character journey, while the book keeps his motives more ambiguous, since no one can be quite sure exactly what he was thinking when. Thus, the film feels more like a novel than the book does.

Many of the more powerful stories from the book are incorporated into the movie, although often the order and the details were changed. Sometimes, several similar incidents were combined into one, or things that happened to a couple different people were shown all happening to the same person, to make the story more concise. For the most part, what happened to the Jewish people was, while not exactly the same, quite consistent. The biggest changes were in the Nazis, especially Schindler and Amon Goeth. The beginning of the movie makes it seem like Schindler didn't particularly care what happened to the Jews as long as he was making money, which helps his speech at the end about how he wished he had sold more of his stuff so he could have saved more people become even more moving and powerful. In the book, he doesn't even make that speech at the end, and it seemed like he came around to the idea of trying to save lives much sooner. The movie attributes most of the earlier work to Itzhak Stern, whereas the book made it seem like Schindler was involved in decisions that the film showed him unhappy about. Also, according to the book, Schindler was arrested and imprisoned several times during the war, while the film only shows this happening once. While this was probably to keep the movie from becoming even longer, multiple arrests helped demonstrate just how much he was risking in a way that the film doesn't convey quite as clearly. In the same way that the movie reduces Schindler's arrests, it doesn't show that Amon Goeth was imprisoned by the SS before the end of the war, which I thought was very interesting. There's also a whole thing in the movie about Schindler telling Goeth that he would be more powerful if he pardoned prisoners and Goeth trying it for about a day, which I don't remember from the book.

If you've only seen the movie, I would recommend reading the book, because it includes several moving episodes, particularly at Brinnlitz toward the end of the war, that the movie kind of skips. However, I don't think the movie could have adapted the book much better. I've always thought showing the color of the little girl's coat in red while the rest of the movie was black and white was very powerful, but I wasn't expecting that girl, and the fact that she loved the color red, to feature so prominently in the book. After having read that, the use of that one color in the film seems more than just a beautiful touch to the film; it seems like it would have been wrong if they hadn't done it that way. I also noticed several other small details that I hadn't remembered from the movie, since they were described more thoroughly in the book. That's actually something I've noticed in several other cases during this project when I'd seen the movie before but never read the book. I'll be reading and think, This wasn't in the movie, and then I'll watch it and see that it actually was, just much more subtly than the book. So while I was a little disappointed when I realized just how many Best Adapted Screenplay winners I'd already blogged about, in a way I'm glad that I was already somewhat familiar with many of these stories.

Speaking of which, the next winner is yet another Best Picture Winner, Forrest Gump, based on the novel by Winston Groom. But after that will be six movies in a row that I haven't blogged about before, which is the longest such stretch so far.

1992: Howards End

Screenplay by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala
Adapted from the novel Howards End by E. M. Forster

This is the story of the middle-class Schlegel sisters and their dealings with two families: the upper-class Wilcoxes, who own a house called Howards End, and the lower-class Basts.

This book was longer and a bit more dense than the last E. M. Forster story I blogged about (A Room with a View). It's still a good book, but I could have done with fewer philosophical tangents. The movie, while it does omit a few of these, is still longer than one would expect compared to the length of the novel, mostly because the book is mostly from Margaret Schlegel's perspective, with a few notable exceptions, whereas the film shows us certain events that she didn't witness, which are only briefly described later in the book when she learns of them. This allows for more explicit foreshadowing in the film. In the novel, several developments seem to come almost out of nowhere; since Margaret had no way to predict them, neither did the reader. These same events in the film come as much less of a surprise to the viewer, since we've been shown more of what led up to them.

For the most part, everything that happens in the book also happens in the film, although some of the details are changed. For example, in both versions, Helen Schlegel meets Leonard Bast after inadvertently stealing his umbrella when they were both listening to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. In the book, they were at a concert, and Margaret, Aunt Juley, and a German cousin were all with Helen. In the film, they were at a lecture, and Helen was alone. This mostly helps simplify the incident, but it also changes the dynamic between Helen and Leonard for the entire story, and again, helps with the foreshadowing. There are several other similar alterations that all help achieve this. I wouldn't call the book disjointed, but the movie is definitely more cohesive.

In short, I think it would be difficult, if not nearly impossible, to adapt this story into a feature film better than was done here. The characters are perfectly brought to life, and the events are all relatively, if not exactly, consistent with the book. The few changes there are make the story flow better and easier to follow. I don't love the story - I think Henry Wilcox is a despicable human being and cannot for the life of me figure out what Margaret sees in him - but it's one of the best novel-to-film adaptations I've seen. And I've seen a lot of them by now.

I just realized that this movie is currently the most recent Best Adapted Screenplay winner that also won Best Actress. And it's also the only time so far (that we know of) when a person has won a Best Actress Oscar who would later go on to win a Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar. But before I get to Emma Thompson's adaptation of Sense and Sensibility, I will be revisiting two more Best Picture Winners, beginning with Schindler's List, based on the novel by Thomas Keneally, which was based on a true story.

1991: The Silence of the Lambs

Screenplay by Ted Tally
Adapted from the novel The Silence of the Lambs by Thomas Harris

FBI trainee Clarice Starling is sent to interview a notorious cannibalistic former psychiatrist named Hannibal Lecter, who, it transpires, possesses vital information regarding an active investigation into a serial killer nicknamed Buffalo Bill. Lecter offers to help Starling in exchange for information about her personal background. Meanwhile, catching Buffalo Bill becomes an even higher priority when he kidnaps the daughter of a senator.

Some books are better suited to film adaptations than others, and this is one that was crying out to be made into a movie. The novel almost reads like a film; a good portion of the narration is basically stage directions. The story is extremely suspenseful and dramatic, and the suspense and drama unfolds much more effectively on screen than on the page. I don't mean to imply that the book doesn't work; it does, but I think the movie works much better. For example (spoiler alert), one the most well-done scenes in the film is when the FBI thinks they've found Buffalo Bill, but Clarice is too far away to join them, so she continues her investigation where she is, and unwittingly stumbles upon Buffalo Bill alone. I love the way they show the FBI guy ringing the doorbell, then the killer reacting to the doorbell, back and forth several times until he opens the door. The first time I watched this movie, I think my heart actually stopped when Clarice was standing there. The book kind of does the same thing - one chapter ends with the FBI at the door, then the next chapter is from the killer's perspective and has him hear the doorbell - but it's not nearly as intense, so the adaptation of that scene was a vast improvement.

As always, there were a few things cut from the book that I would have liked to see. Clarice's roommate, Ardelia, is more important in the book, and her frequent sassy remarks provide welcome comedic relief to break the tension, so I missed her in the movie. She's still there, but barely. Jack Crawford, the agent in charge of the Buffalo Bill investigation, has a wife dying of cancer who isn't mentioned in the film. I can see why the filmmakers would find this unnecessary, but I like the way it adds to his stress level and raises the stakes for him. Similarly, toward the end book Clarice is repeatedly told that she'll almost certainly be kicked out of school if she doesn't direct her focus away from the investigation and back to her studies, so her choices make it very clear that this case is more important to her than her own future. This is only vaguely hinted at in the movie, and I think it could have been a little more effective if it was emphasized more. But overall, I think the few other changes that were made actually improved the story, and consequently this is one of the best adaptations to win this award. It's consistent with the book, but not confined by it, and the story unfolds much more smoothly onscreen. Though I'm getting a little tired of having to watch this movie over and over again for these Oscar projects, at least I can say that all of its awards were very well-deserved.

As I mentioned in my last post, this is currently the most recent winner of Best Picture, Best Actress, and Best Adapted Screenplay. However, many of the Adapted Screenplay winners since Silence of the Lambs have also won one or the other of the categories I previously blogged about, just not both. Case in point: the next winner is Howards End, which did not win Best Picture, but Emma Thompson won Best Actress for her performance in it. It was also the second time Ruth Prawer Jhabvala won this award for adapting a novel of E. M. Forster's (the first being 1986's A Room with a View). So stay tuned for that.