Re: Oscar-winning Screenplays

Warning: This may be controversial... 



I'm interested to hear, what other Writers and Experts here think of this theory... 
(I'm currently doing a PhD on it, so - keen to hear arguments - both for, and against).

With Oscar-winning screenwriters, there is a very strong pattern that emerges. 


i.e. See the list, here: 

http://www.filmsite.org/bestscreenplays.html


eg Billy Wilder, Woody Allen, Charles Brackett (who?), Fellini, Coppola, Damon, Cody, etc

The patterns that emerge are these:

* They all made a bunch of films before. ie - were all pretty much working `inside the system', whether it be Woody Allen, writing on TV for years first, Matt Damon, Diablo Cody, etc. 


When you look at their first films, they are usually: schlocky genre films. (eg Horror, or Broad Comedy, etc). Not that I am criticizing that. I love schlocky genre films. I also love Oscar winners. (Stop trying to pigeonhole me. I have no agenda. I like Diogenes, holding `the Lamp of Truth' up to - stuff. :) It's just a PhD.

* They're all white males. Also - 2 of them have beards, and none has `just a mustache'. So - obviously, first thing you need to do - to kick-start that writing career, is shave off the 'tache, and - especially so, if you're not a male.

* Examining the winners, raises the Q: When Academy members vote on Best Screenplay, what are they voting for? `Best' Story, and best actual Writing (execution)? ie - I can't find it written down anywhere, exactly what the Academy members are being asked to vote on. ie The question is wide open to interpretation. Therefore, in a voting situation, how do we know, that everyone is using the same criteria? ie, Best `Theme'? Some people think the Theme of `Revenge' is brilliant (see: Hamlet, Moby-Dick, Harry Potter, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, and most popular fiction be it screen or book), yet - others find it utterly morally offensive and extremely `Old Testament' (ie - Eye for an eye - which leaves everyone with one eye missing, etc).

So - are they (Academy voters) making a value judgement, based on `nothing objective'?

(And what makes a `best' Story? Almost all films, have the exact-same Structure). Plot? Some people could care less about whether the hero solves that particular mystery. Dialog? - Is it all of these things they are voting on? We might assume "yes - all those things" but - how do we know that for sure?

ie - Has anybody ever checked - exactly what they were looking at comparatively, in deciding, which one to vote for as Best Screenplay? Is it just some intuitive feeling they get?, i.e. "I really liked that movie/script"?

Was it that - they were struck by some memorable scenes, or lines of dialog? Also `Adaptations' have a whole host of other fuzzy factors. Like: how many of the Academy members actually read the books, then saw the movie - and are comparing the book to the film? - What if, the film cut out one of the most crucial/important elements of the book (eg some subtext), How would they know? (Answer: maybe they wouldn't)

I guess my point is this: Is Winning an Oscar for `best screenplay' worth aspiring to?
Is that process, really an objective meritocracy? - Does the `best' screenplay actually win? What does `best' really mean? Arguably, `best' loosely according to a certain group of people's subjective feelings..?

i.e. How much of the process can be controlled, and therefore, how likely is a plan to win an Oscar to succeed? Or is a better goal - just to make a film that makes a profit? (as - if you don't, your next film may be hard - or even impossible, to finance.)

Anyway so I have a feature film coming out soon, in US theaters. It's won a bunch of awards and stuff. But how `scientific' are awards anyway?

Also, if it's your first film, i.e. If you are an unproduced writer, if the budget is over $2m, it probably has almost-no chance of ever getting made. (Discuss...)