The Writer's Guild of America announced its (very) short list of nominees for the 2008 releases. You can read them here. Most of these aren't surprising; the Coens made the list (even if they didn't deserve it), as did Woody Allen, the writer of The Wrestler and the smaller The Visitor, amongst the original screenplays.
But so did Dustin Lance Black for Milk.
The Dark Knight had to go into adapted screenplay, as it is based on Kane's original characters (though the plot bears no resemblance to any prior Batman storyline). But a writer who creates a work based on reality, who uses the actual writing of the hero in the script, he can get credit for an original work.
This may seem like semantics to many. After all, Milk is a (reportedly) a very good work, in no small part to Mr. Black, deserving of a WGA nod. However, what does this say about how we view art? Is it easier to adapt a work (such as Frost/Nixon) than to "create" one? Should Mr. Black win, would his award be more meritorious than the one for the adapted screenplay?
Let's hear from our very own writer, Aaron, as well as any and all of those who might be out there on the interweb.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The problem is not with Milk being in the "original screenplay" category, but with Dark Knight being "adapted". Adapted means taking a work and translating it into another medium. You adapt a book or play for screen, adapt a film for stage, etc. Basing a film on characters that existed before is not an adaptation, anymore than Adaptation was an adaptation of the Orchid Thief.
I wholeheartedly agree, as this doubly confuses the rules of the WGA.
Post a Comment