1990: Dances with Wolves

Screenplay by Michael Blake
Adapted from the novel Dances with Wolves by Michael Blake

After being decorated for bravery during the American Civil War, Lieutenant Dunbar requests to be posted to the frontier. When he arrives at Fort Sedgewick, however, Dunbar finds his new post deserted. His only companions are his horse and a lone wolf, until he begins to encounter Native Americans. Dunbar has been warned about their vicious, savage nature, and is therefore surprised to find them intelligent and just as human as he is. Soon the lieutenant finds himself torn between two worlds: the white world he was born into as John Dunbar, and the Indian world he grows to love as Dances with Wolves.

As has been the case with pretty much all of these Oscar-winning screenplays that were written by the author of the source material (I believe this was the 13th, counting ones that the original author co-wrote with other people), both versions of Dances with Wolves are quite similar. There are, however, a few extremely significant differences. The Natives in the book are Comanches, while in the movie they're Sioux, but almost all of the details about their culture and life are exactly the same. I don't know if that's because the Comanche and Sioux tribes are in fact very similar, or if they could just find more actors who could speak the Sioux language and therefore went through and changed every reference to Comanche in the original script to Sioux, but either way it struck me as a little odd. I did appreciate that they seem to have actually found Native actors to play the Native characters, which happens so rarely in Hollywood movies, but I would be curious to hear their thoughts on the accuracy of how their culture was portrayed.

Apart from changing tribes, there aren't a lot of major alterations to the story until the very end. Beyond that, the film depicts most of the main events of the book almost exactly as they originally appeared, but not always in the same order. The most glaring example of this is the beginning. The book starts with Dunbar on his way to Fort Sedgewick, and explains the events leading up to this later. The movie shows these events in chronological order, starting with Dunbar fighting the war. This doesn't make too much difference to the story itself, and I think it works well in both versions. But then there's the end. The end of the movie is completely different from the end of the book, which just feels strange given how similar the rest of it is. Granted, the final conclusion is the same: white people continued to invade and steal all the land. But the specific destinies of Dances with Wolves and his wife, Stands with a Fist, are on very different paths when each version of the story leaves them. Personally, I much prefer the ending of the book, but that's mostly because it's a little bit happier, and the rest is so sad that I really like seeing something even slightly good come out of it.

Stay tuned for the seventh and most recent Best Adapted Screenplay winner to also win Best Picture and Best Actress: Silence of the Lambs, aka the perfect Christmas story, based on the novel by Thomas Harris.

1989: Driving Miss Daisy

Screenplay by Alfred Uhry
Adapted from the play Driving Miss Daisy by Alfred Uhry

Daisy Werthan can no longer drive, so her son, Boolie, hires Hoke Coleburn to be her chauffeur, against her will. Ultimately her need for transportation overcomes her stubbornness, and she grudgingly allows Hoke to start driving her. Despite their differences in wealth, religion, education, and race, Daisy and Hoke form a close bond that lasts for the rest of their lives.

As is generally the case when plays are adapted into films, particularly when both scripts have the same author, the differences are minimal. Almost all of the dialogue is exactly the same, although the film makes some significant additions. The most striking change was the addition of more people. The play only has three people in the cast: Daisy, Hoke, and Boolie. While the film does mostly focus on those three, and most of the added people are extras, there are two important characters who are mentioned repeatedly in the play that we actually see in the movie: Boolie's wife, Florine, and Daisy's maid, Idella. They act pretty much exactly as they're described in the play, so their addition is still very consistent with the original. Florine doesn't do much, so I don't feel like her presence really enhances the story, but Idella is a great addition. I think the story greatly benefits from having her as an intermediary between Daisy and Hoke, which she kind of is offstage in the play, but I enjoy getting to actually see her interact with them in the movie.

Apart from scenes relating to Florine and Idella, the biggest change is during the road trip scene. The movie adds two police officers who question Hoke and Daisy suspiciously for no reason. Nothing terrible comes of this, and it's a relatively brief incident, but it helps to emphasize the deep-seeded prejudice of the society, mostly against black people, but also against Jewish people. This fits in well with the rest of the story, since although bigotry isn't the main focus, it's an ever-present undertone throughout, and this addition helps further tie this together. The play doesn't give much of a feel for how the outside world viewed this unlikely couple, and the film's use of these policemen to do that helps put the story into perspective. In many ways, the world was changing very fast during the time this story was set, but in others, not nearly fast enough. And unfortunately, that can still be said today. But it's nice to have this sweet story to remind us that friendship can prevail even when surrounded and discouraged by bigotry.

At the time of blogging, this is the second most recent winner of the three awards I've blogged about: Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Picture, and Best Actress. The most recent was two years later, but before I get to that I'll enter the 1990s with yet another Best Picture (but not Best Actress) winner to also win this award: Dances with Wolves, based on the novel by Michael Blake.

1988: Dangerous Liaisons

Screenplay by Christopher Hampton
Adapted from the novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos

The Marquise de Merteuil wants her friend and ex-lover, the Vicomte de Valmont, to seduce the young and innocent Cécile Volange, who is about to become engaged to a man whom the Marquise despises. The Vicomte, however, feels that Cécile is too boring of a target, and declares that he would rather focus on Madame de Tourvel, a married woman known for her strict morals. Without losing sight of her plans for Cécile, the Marquise makes a deal with the Vicomte: if he is successful in his seduction of Madame de Tourvel, the Marquise will allow him to return to her own bed.

In terms of the events of the story, the film is remarkably consistent with the novel. Naturally, some parts were simplified, and a few minor subplots were eliminated, but overall the main events were shown essentially the way they were described in the book. However, the way the story is told changed so significantly that they feel different. The novel consists entirely of letters written by various characters to each other, whereas the movie shows the characters interacting with each other. This allows readers to see different perspectives of the same event, which is particularly interesting since Valmont and Merteuil are almost always lying to everyone else except each other, and the other characters often feel the need to conceal their true thoughts to keep their dignity. The movie, showing the events themselves rather than letters after the fact, relies on the actors to convey these deceptions to the audience. Thanks to the film's stellar cast, the characters' thoughts and motivations are still quite clear without being spelled out.

However, some things are sacrificed with the elimination of the letters. For instance, the film doesn't develop Cécile or the man she loves, Danceny, very much at all compared to the book, so we feel less invested in them, which is perhaps part of the reason the movie doesn't bother to tell us what happens to them at the end. Not that I can truly blame the screenwriter for sacrificing these rather vanilla characters in favor of the far more interesting, though despicable, Vicomte and Marquise. The film mostly focuses on their relationship, which is also arguably the main focus of the book, but their whole dynamic changes significantly when they're talking face-to-face instead of writing. As far as I remember, Valmont and Merteuil never actually meet up during the whole course of the book (if they do, it's very brief), but in the movie they have several in-person conversations. While what they say is mostly very similar to what their original counterparts wrote to each other, there's a lot more back-and-forth in a real conversation than in letter correspondence, so the pacing of their conversations is a lot faster in the film. In addition, often the book put several letters from other characters in between theirs, so the reader has to wait longer to find out how they respond to each other than the viewer. I'm not sure if it's a direct result of this change in format or not, but I noticed that both of them, but particularly the Marquise, appear a lot more vulnerable and human on screen than on the page. They're still horrible, but they seem more real when they're having conversations than just writing formal letters. The movie version of the Marquise seemed to me much more clearly in love with Valmont than she is in the book, but perhaps I wasn't reading between the lines enough. Though different, I think both versions of the Marquise/Vicomte relationship are quite effective, with the one caveat that because we haven't seen them write very many letters to each other in the movie, the part at the end when the letters are revealed doesn't quite have the same effect. Otherwise, although I didn't particularly enjoy the story itself, I thought both the book and the movie told it very well.

Much to my relief, after this story about people being terrible to each other, I get to move on to a sweet story about an unlikely friendship, the sixth Best Adapted Screenplay winner to also win both Best Picture and Best Actress: Driving Miss Daisy, based on the very short play by Alfred Uhry. So stay tuned for that soon.