The Los Angeles Times has an interesting poll today asking, who was Oscars sorest loser? There are many to choose from, no doubt. I’d have to go with the legendary Lauren Bacall. When the grand dame was nominated for best supporting actress back in 1996 for The Mirror Has Two Faces, she was the odds on favorite to win. If looks could kill, the evening’s winner, The English Patient’s Juliette Binoche would be spinning in her grave.


I remember at the time, there were a lot of rumors that Bacall wouldn’t win because of her bad reputation in Hollywood–she was a real diva, mean to subordinates–whatever the case may be, she lost out on what was probably her last chance to win a golden statuette.
Personally, I didn’t think either woman gave the best supporting actress performance of the year. That honor should have gone to Marianne Jean-Baptiste in Secrets and Lies.
Rachel Donadio writes in the New York Times about whether the increasing willingness of Hollywood studios to make movies out of novels is changing the way writers write.

Some writers, however, insist that having their novels turned into movies has hardly affected their writing at all. “I make work that is pretty resistant to being filmed, and if the film community cares to try, that’s fine with me and indicates fortitude on their part,” said Rick Moody, whose novel “The Ice Storm” was adapted by Ang Lee. “But I don’t think about the movie business while I am composing novels and stories.” Although he was in touch with the director and producer during filming, Moody said he tried to follow Hemingway’s advice, which he summarized as follows: “Drive to the border of California, throw your book over the fence. When they throw the money back over the fence, collect the money and drive home.”

If a author can successfully write a novel for the screen, I say why not go for it. The fact that a writer may be able to sell their work for a screen adaptation may change the approach, but if it’s good, what’s the difference?