OSCARS POLL - VOTE: Was 'Shakespeare' or 'Ryan' really best picture?
No Oscars expert is permitted to have a casual opinion on this hotly debated question: Which film really deserved to win best picture of 1998 — "Saving Private Ryan" or the one that pulled off a last-minute upset, "Shakespeare in Love"?
Beware: It's the most controversial Oscar question you can ask today. Every time it gets posed in The Envelope's message boards, a nuclear cyber-war erupts — and everybody gets burnt in the fallout.
As far as I'm concerned, the answer's obvious: "Shakespeare in Love" was clever, dramatic, richly imagined and brilliantly written and performed.
People who claim to prefer "Saving Private Ryan" are blinded, I say, by the starpower of its actors (Tom Hanks, Matt Damon) and director (Steven Spielberg) and overwhelmed by the BOOM-BANG-KABOOM of that magnificent opening segment on Omaha beach. They don't see through the paint-by-numbers plot or hear the one-dimensional characters recite dialog that would embarrass actors in an elementary-school play. The writer responsible for that travesty, Robert Rodat, eventually got exposed for his hack work. The only big movie he wrote afterward was that gawdawful "The Patriot," in which "no cliche was left unturned," noted TV Guide.
By comparison, "Shakespeare in Love" was penned by Tom Stoppard, arguably the greatest living playwright in the English language. He holds two records at the Tonys: most awards won by a play (7 for "The Coast of Utopia") and most victories for best play ( 4 - "Coast of Utopia," "The Real Thing," "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" and "Travesties"). He knows how to write fun commercial pix, too: he was the uncredited script doctor on "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade."
"Shakespeare in Love's" Oscar-winning script is a masterwork full of perfect-pitch drama, intriguing mystery, crafty dialog, fascinating characters and jokes that dared to aim over the heads of 95 percent of its audiences, which never seemed to care or perhaps didn't even notice. They jammed theaters anyway, turning "Shakespeare" — zounds! — into a surprise hit. Oh, come on! It deserved the Oscar just for making the Bard sexy again!
But many gritty film critics — you know, the macho, unwashed, snarly pussed downtown type — love to blast away at "Shakespeare" because it's so, you know, "sappy." Movies full of unabashed romanticism must be punished and mocked by them because, frankly, those critics are incapable of feeling it and don't understand what it is.
Those are the kind of hyper-guy-guy critics who I love to hate because testosterone predictably blinds them to obvious things like the awful script of "Saving Private Ryan," which they don't notice while being lost in hormonal ecstasy over Spielberg's spectacular killing spree on screen. Sure, that was great action and cinematography, but that alone does not a movie make. Someday when those critics go, inevitably, to hell, I imagine they'll be held captive in a screening room, blindfolded, where Lucifer, at his most sinister, forces them to listen to the words of "Saving Private Ryan" running in the background.
PRIVATE REIBEN (Edward Burns): "Hey, Doc, I got a mother, all right? I mean, you got a mother. Sarge's got a mother. I mean, s**t, I bet even the captain's got a mother. (He turns and looks at Miller, who has a bemused expression on his face.) Well, maybe not the captain, but the rest of us got mothers!"
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Such clever wit must really be heard over and over and over again — for eternity — to be fully appreciated, don't you agree? Let's give those film critics exactly what they deserve.
Have I gotten you "Saving Private Ryan" fans all ticked off yet? Hope so. Having this fight is the fun part of being an Oscar expert. Load your "Private Ryan" rifles and let me have it right back! I dare ya! Click on the "Comments" link below.
(Photos: Miramax, DreamWorks)
I saw Shakespeare again recently and it still has my mind and heart. I'm a writer and a romantic and it just spoke to me - I passionately loved it in a way that I couldn't love "...Ryan". The dialogue, the acting, the cleverness, the romance. It moved me and I thought worked together as a whole in a way "...Ryan" did not though I thought i was powerful. Alas, in film, and in anything else, one person's meat is another's poison.
Posted by: hawkie | November 21, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Thamk you for validating my many fights over this Unfortunately, for me, I hated the choice of Ms Paltrow as best actress. It was another take on disease of the month, and I put Dustn's Oscar in that catagory. A really superior film, flawed by the Paltrow accent and lack of real acting ability.
I also think Mr. Speilberg is the most overrated director in history. Money is the driving force. I have yet to see a movie of his that shows any talent beyond directing 101.
Posted by: Larry | November 21, 2007 at 12:55 PM
I was thinking about Tom's reasoning for SPR's loss, and I think he is totally wrong. I think there are 4 better reasons that contributed to its loss.
1. Even as a SIL supporter, I realize that a large part of its victory was due to Miramax's masterful campaigning. They made it seem OK to vote against the Greatest Generation and vote for the fun intellectual romance instead of the dour "important" WW2 film.
2. Steven Spielberg was so closely tied to SPR that in many ways voters probably felt that giving him Best Director allowed them to vote for SIL for Best Picture. This was particularly notable because since SIL was largely a writing achievement, there was never a moment that it was considered for Best Director so if people wanted to honor both SPR and SIL with big awards it had to be Spielberg for Best Director and SIL for Best Picture.
3. SPR came out in the summer in a time when you could still release a film at the end of December in NY/LA and have a great shot at an Oscar nom. Also SPR was a movie that the more you thought about it the less you liked it. I remember initially being wowed, but the more I thought about the film (particularly the film after the opening scene) the less memorable and impressive it seemed. The summer release allowed people to rethink their initial reactions to the film.
4. Finally, The Thin Red Line probably did not help things at all. In direct comparison with SPR its really hard to claim that SPR was the better WW2 film. It had the Terrence Malick's first movie since Days of Heaven in 1978 appeal to it (which for many was more appealing than any Spielberg pedigree). While it was never going to beat SPR, it probably managed to suck away enough votes to allow the SIL bloc to win Best Picture.
Posted by: chasgoose | November 21, 2007 at 09:38 AM
Tom I do not know what critics you are talking about! Critics loved the SIL script. But critics are also auteurists! While SIL may have had a loved script it had no directorial flair at all. Over and over I read BRILLIANT SCRIPT!!!!!! Stoppard is the Auteur!!!! No praise at all for the hack never to be heard from again Director who got lucky. Don't be so eager to bash.
Posted by: BTN | November 21, 2007 at 08:02 AM
Sorry, Tom, I have to go against you on this one. "Saving Private Ryan" was the better movie, but it lost for two reasons: (a) It sat out there too long before the Oscars, and (b) Academy members inevitably compared it to "Schindler's List". It's harder to win a second Oscar because you usually have to beat your first winner; Hanks in "Forrest Gump" (a career-defining role that at least momentarily overshadowed "Philadelphia") was one of the few times that was done successfully.
Posted by: RBBrittain | November 20, 2007 at 10:34 PM
THE TRUMAN SHOW was the Best Picture of 1998.
Posted by: Marshall | November 20, 2007 at 09:41 PM
While I think you are a bit reductive, as usual, I think your criticisms of Saving Private Ryan pretty much sum up the major flaws of that film. Aside from the opening sequence (even that pales in comparison to scenes from recent films like Children of Men) there is nothing to reccomend about this film. It's overly long, mawkish, and relatively boring. Also, Saving Private Ryan wasn't even the best WW2 movie that year as the magnificent The Thin Red Line was also nominated. That is why I can never really understand why people say that SPR's loss was such a travesty. I can see how SIL seems slight and silly and unworthy of Best Picture, but I mean if SIL hadn't won, The Thin Red Line should have been next in line not SPR.
Between SPR and Shakespeare in Love, I would have to choose Shakespeare in Love. It was fun, charming and well-made. It was romantic without being sappy, intellectual without being pretentious, and very well-acted and constructed. It may not have been cinematically daring and it may have been a little frivolous, but it was a solidly made movie that I cannot find too much wrong with and that is a lot more than I can say about many Best Picture winners.
At least Life is Beautiful didn't win. I watched that again recently and it was terrible. The first half is ridiculous and stupid and the Holocaust part is historically troubling and borderline offensive (I mean the characters never even acknowledge that they are Jews, as though they are trying to ignore it). So at least Shakespeare in Love took the Miramax machine's attentions away from that.
If I were voting I would have ranked the films like this:
1. The Thin Red Line
2. Shakespeare in Love
3. Elizabeth
4. Saving Private Ryan
5. Life is Beautiful
Posted by: chasgoose | November 20, 2007 at 03:11 PM
My husband and I spent last weekend watching both films, wanting to review the very same debate covered in your post. We came away clearly "In Love." SPR is all about the beach scene, period.
Posted by: Natasha | November 20, 2007 at 02:01 PM
I mildly preferred SIL to SPR - and I agree with the poster above that its "upset" victory could be seen from a mile off - but I wasn't really crazy about either. In fact, if I were ranking all the nominees, they'd certainly come in 4th or 5th place. (And yes, I am one of those apparently "pretentious" people who would have voted for The Thin Red Line.)
But Tom, why get so abusive over the fact that (gasp!) people like different movies? And as for this tired ranting of yours that films with predominantly male casts are somehow missing a sensitivity chip... SPR may be somewhat heavy-handed (in my opinion at least), but you couldn't accuse it of not being a very emotional film. 'Sensitivity' and 'romance' are not synonymous.
As far as I'm concerned, the only real travesty of the 1998 awards was Gwyneth Paltrow's best-actress Oscar. As if it weren't an obvious enough mistake THEN, take a look at the state of Paltrow and Blanchett's respective careers NOW.
Am I the only one who wishes sometimes these awards could be voted for five or so years after the movies are made?
Posted by: Rob | November 20, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Saving Private Ryan is a good war movie and one of Spielberg's better movies (Jaws, Schlinder's List being others...I slept thru ET...not as enchanting and very over-hyped)..SIL is a good romantic movie but SPR should have won Best Pic...face Gwyneth Paltrow did not deserve to win Best Actress...that was robbery!
Posted by: Frankie R. | November 20, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Best of 1998?
Gods and Monsters
The Thin Red Line
Central Station. Period
Posted by: Calirai Hayek | November 20, 2007 at 08:28 AM
I must agree with Roman.
Tom, I think you have no call on judging those who consider RYAN to be a great nor to make ridiculously shallow assumptions on why they liked it, Oscar-worthy film.
It's as insulting and stupid as if someone said you preferred a fluffy romantic comedy SIL because you're gay. What would you feel about that?
Posted by: Gustavo H.R. | November 20, 2007 at 07:08 AM
Tom, I hate when you divide people into two camps like that. Only macho, unromantic idiots could possibly like "Saving Private Ryan," and only witty, urbane sophisticates could possibly see through it. Maybe the reason this issue is so contentious is because you insult not only the movie, but its fans.
I saw both movies, and I loved both movies. Yes, it is possible. And though I thought both films were brilliant, I thought "Saving Private Ryan" was the better of the two and deserved to win Best Picture. I guess you would have preferred the World War II soldiers to recite sonnets, like they did in the unbearably pretentious "Thin Red Line," or perhaps something else to satisfy your snobbery. Clearly you enjoy being in that elite 5% of people who you insist were the only ones to get the jokes in "Shakespeare in Love."
If you're going to dismiss "Saving Private Ryan," feel free. But can you please stop condescending to its fans to make your point? Yeesh. Enjoy your high horse.
Posted by: 742 | November 20, 2007 at 06:57 AM
I remember seeing both films and I had definitely preferred Shakespeare in Love: it was witty, crafty, very well written and very entertaining.
Actually, since the incomprehensible and shocking “Crash vs Brokeback Mountain” Oscar debacle, there has been countless references to the so-called Oscar “upset” that happened when Shakespeare in Love won over Saving Private Ryan. The 2005 and 1998 “upsets” are two very different situations and I don’t think they can actually be compared. In fact, both “Shakespeare…” and “Saving…” could have walked away with the Best Picture Oscar and both were legitimate leading contenders. I realize that Shakespeare in Love's win over Saving Private Ryan in 1998 was a surprise and a disappointment for many Spielberg fans but, let’s put aside each and everyone’s personal preferences and let's look at facts and numbers. Shakespeare in Love had an astounding number of nominations: 13! The most nominations of all films that year (only two movies had done better in Oscar history: All about Eve and Titanic). Furthermore, Shakespeare had already won a Golden Globe Award for Best Picture (Musical or Comedy). I think we can safely say that it was a strong and logical contender. Was it therefore a big surprise that it could walk away with the big prize? Not really. Saving Private Ryan might have been the so-called favourite, but Shakespeare in Love was a very well-liked film, it didn’t just come out of nowhere, there sure was a strong buzz surrounding it and it had the number of nominations to back it up. The media and film critics who preferred Saving Private Ryan’s made a big issue of the “Oscar upset” but, really, it wasn’t an improbable conclusion.
The Crash vs Brokeback Mountain upset was very different. Brokeback Mountain made a historic sweep through the award season being named "Best Picture" an unprecedented 26 times! …it eventually collected even more accolades for a total tally of 30 plus. Brokeback also had the highest number of nominations for that year’s Academy Awards. It was unequivocally the most talked about film of the year and the most acclaimed & decorated film of the last decade. At the other end of the spectrum, there was Crash which basically came out of nowhere. It had sunk into oblivion, hadn’t done great at the box office and hadn't earned very good reviews, to say the least. It was not in the critics’ top-20 lists for 2005, and, did not even get a nomination for Best Picture at the Golden Globes. I don’t think these two situations can be compared because when considering these facts and numbers, Shakespeare was a legitimate winner and Crash wasn’t.
Regarding Spielberg: I must say that as a young teenager, I had loved Jaws! I also liked Duel (by Spielberg in 1971) which I saw later. Afterwards, my appreciation for Spielberg films diminished. His films always seem excessively over-produced and there is way too much music (the music is Spielberg’s films is omnipresent, it’s usually “wall-to-wall” music … it is insufferable!) Spielberg’s films are also very manipulative: it invariably seems liked the viewer is “pushed” to feel a certain way (instead of “invited” as one would be in films by masterful and subtle director Ang Lee).
I agree with a lot of what you say in your article Tom. Actually, the recent American Film Institute countdown of the 100 best films in American history clearly demonstrated a strong slant for bloody, gory and gruesome movies. A very high number of these Top-100 movies dealt with violence, war, mafia, murder, gangsters, etc... I suppose it reflects an obsession & fascination for violence in American culture. Movies and television are America’s mirror to itself and its window to the world. Should we thus be surprised that the rest of the world perceives the USA as violent? It’s actually nice and comforting to see that a “romantic” film such as “Shakespeare in Love” can be honoured once in a while.
Posted by: Daniel | November 19, 2007 at 08:49 PM
Tom, you're right about that hack Robert Rodat who wrote-- I kid you not-- the WORST movie line in history.
From THE PATRIOT:
Character (names too forgettable): May I sit here with you? (or something similar)
Other character (while gazing at the shore): It's a free country... Or it will be anyway.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You're right, though. I was one of those RYAN fans until I noticed that the writer also wrote The Patriot. When I found out, I was so shocked that I immediately rewatched RYAN, and sure enough, crappy dialogue.
Still, though, one of my all-time favorite movies is LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL. The story is an instant classic. So I'd have a tough choice voting between BEAUTIFUL and SHAKESPEARE.
Posted by: Sam | November 19, 2007 at 08:40 PM
No contest, Tom! Stoppard is arguably the greatest playwright since... Shakespeare. I had to explain to the people seated around me why the Webster reveal was classic! It's not just that the language sings and soars, or that the cast delivers sublime performances. This was a film that made me fall in love with LOVE and (all over again) with that most abused play ROMEO AND JULIET. And it's a film that only grows richer and better with each viewing.
Posted by: jay | November 19, 2007 at 08:22 PM
It always bothered me how many actors are in both Elizabeth and Shakespeare in Love. And I was deciding between these two and I finally decided to go with Love, because it is the best movie.
Posted by: AJ | November 19, 2007 at 07:05 PM
One major correction, I misread the poll results. That was a mistake on my part. However, I claim that this is mostly due on the nature of this article which is very biased and is not a representative opinion of most people.
Posted by: Roman | November 19, 2007 at 06:50 PM
"People who claim to prefer "Saving Private Ryan" are blinded, I say, by the starpower of its actors (Tom Hanks, Matt Damon)."
This is a such a ridicolous point, I feel that I have to call it.
Back the movie came out Matt Damon wasn't even that big of a name, The only thing that it had going for it in terms of cast was Hanks. Compare this to the almost all-star cast of Shakespeare.
And how about we love and prefer this movie because it's superior? You say writing it cliched? I say it's deep and thought provoking. The characters such as Upham and Mellish are MUCH better fleshed out and, in my opinion more interesting than Shakespeare itself.
To me personally, the most refreshing thing about the film s that it's not anti-war on the surfice. However, by showing us true costs of war this movie makes you fear it more than practically any other movie I know. It's the randomness of the bullets, that's so scary, I think.
How can you call that one-dimensional when it was praised and lauded by the ultimate critics, the VETS themselves??? That strikes me as a cheap shot actually.
And forget that "magnificent opening segment", the last scene at the bridge is so powerful it trumps even that. Now that's what I call magnificent filmmaking!
And please, don't tell is WHY we like it. I think we know this already.
Stoppard is a terrific writer and I will forever respect him for his (even better) contributions to Brazil but this is no conterst.
Shakespeare is a pretty good movie too. It's a decent runner up to the prize (but even that may be a bit of stretch). Compared to Chicago it's pretty much a masterpiece though.
In conlusion, when Ryan lost it was a travesty. However, when Munich lost it was a crime (but this is a topic for another day).
And I find to believe that a "War" really errupts when someone bring up this topic. As seen from the poll results here and in plenty other places, there are much more heated topics out there. Voters clearly seem to prefer "Ryan".
And all of this is IMO, of course ;).
Posted by: Roman | November 19, 2007 at 06:48 PM