MovieChat Forums > Saving Private Ryan (1998) Discussion > Why this lost the Best Picture Oscar.

Why this lost the Best Picture Oscar.

posted 9 years ago by powermandan
57 replies | jump to latest

I do agree that this should have won the Oscar for best picture of 1998. This was far better than Shakespeare In Love. But I did some analyzing and here are the reasons (I think) SPR lost. (These are mostly reasons why )

-Saving Private Ryan is extremely brutal and violent. You can understand why some Academy members would not vote for this. But that didn't stop them from Braveheart or Platoon!

-Saving Private Ryan has no complexity. It is just a simple, straight-forward story of a platoon trying to capture a private. Despite being amazing as heck, this had one of the weakest stories of the year.

-Thin Red Line. Thin Red Line is another WWII epic from 1998 that rivalled Saving Private Ryan. Twin movies like these are always feuding. It wouldn't have been fair to award won but not the other.

-Shakespeare In Love was worthy of winning the gold. If Saving Private Ryan did not come out in 1998, Shakespeare In Love would have been a very worthy winner.

-Shakespeare In Love has more to it. Despite Saving Private Ryan begin better, Shakespeare In Love had the better dialogue, better music, a wider range of emotions, stronger character development, better sets, better costumes, awesome allusions.

-Look at how many WWII movies came out before Saving Private Ryan that won the gold. Look at how many Shakespeare movies have won the gold.

-It is rare for the Best Picture and Best Director Oscars to go out to different films. While Saving Private Ryan was easily the hardest film to make, voters wanted Shakespeare In Love to take something home too.

[–] RoadKillBill1 9 years ago

I can respect most of the reasons you give, except for this one...

-Saving Private Ryan has no complexity. It is just a simple, straight-forward story of a platoon trying to capture a private. Despite being amazing as heck, this had one of the weakest stories of the year.

SPR was way more complex than you give it credit for. The frustrations between the men in the field vs the brass over the mission, the conflicts between Miller and some of the squad members, the whole Upham as Everyman juxtaposed against the German Everyman, Steamboat Willie, final question of at what point does sacrificing soldiers' lives move from the necessities of society to mere waste. There is a lot there, if only one chooses to look at it.

TNSTAAFL

[–] powermandan 9 years ago

You know what I meant.

[–] RoadKillBill1 9 years ago

Mmmmmm ok. I assumed you meant what you wrote. My bad, I guess?

TNSTAAFL

[–] powermandan 9 years ago

Of course Saving Private Ryan has complexity when you dissect it. I liked that about it. It's general plot is a group of guys trying to rescue a private. But Shakespeare In Love's general plot is more complex: a young William Shakespeare tries to write great plays to make money and keep up with his rival and ends up falling in love with an actor who is really an actress.

Bottom line: Shakespeare In Love's general plot is thicker than Saving Private Ryan's. But the dissections and analysis's of each are equal.

Keep in mind, me stating the reasons Saving Private Ryan lost are mostly just guesses.

[–] RoadKillBill1 9 years ago

Bottom line: Shakespeare In Love's general plot is thicker than Saving Private Ryan's. But the dissections and analysis's of each are equal.

The second half of the above makes the first half moot.

TNSTAAFL

[–] powermandan 9 years ago

I've gotta ask, what does TNSTAAFL mean?

[–] RoadKillBill1 9 years ago

There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

TNSTAAFL

[–] music_150 9 years ago

I have really enjoyed your dialogue - we so seldom see this kind of communication these days. Bill, R A Heinlein actually wrote TANSTAAFL - There AIN'T - just a minor correction - but a fun one!

[–] RoadKillBill1 9 years ago

No, I'm pretty sure he wrote "There's no...". However, I'm out of town, and can't check my library. In any case, he did not originate the phrase. IIRC it was coined by some early 20th century economist about free lunches being offered in saloons. His name escapes me at the moment. RAH used it as the official motto of his "Luna" colony. If fact it was even on the flag. Although he populated his worlds with unpretentious folks, I don't think he would have made their officialdom quite so informal.

And, yes I've enjoyed the exchange as well.

TNSTAAFL

[–] music_150 9 years ago

Bill, it was in his book, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, which won the Hugo Award. If you find the name of the economist who coined the phrase, I would love to do a little research. Have a Happy New Year!

[–] RoadKillBill1 9 years ago

I know. I've read it several times. He also used it a few more times in other works when talking about a colony on the Moon. RAH is my favorite writer.
Wikki has a good article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain't_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch

I was thinking of Milton Friedman. But, it seems I was wrong about that. It apparently does go back to the salons though. I am sick with a bad GI bug right now, so I'll have to leave this for a bit.

TNSTAAFL

[–] joekinplaya 8 years ago

I thought it didn't really need dissection. The whole theme of the story is the group of men wouldn't give two craps about Ryan and have to watch their own selves dying and go through suffering to save this one person. Why is this one person deserving of going home and being saved? Why are they even allocating resources to save this man? Who cares about this man? There are plenty of families that die off in war. I mean transition over to the other side of WWII in the Pacific and civilian families were being used as bombs or meat shields as Japanese banzai squads charged at marines at Okinawa.

I understand you're trying to justify the decision of what happened and that this isn't necessarily exactly what you feel about the film. But I felt that SPR had a much deeper meaning which was already implied by the letter. Even logically thinking you can deduce sacrificing men to save one possibly dead man is not worth it especially in times of total war on the planet. Even after the film, for Ryan, the sacrifice these men made is a driving factor for him to live his life to the fullest. And even as he tried to live his life as best as possible, it doesn't really feel worthy when standing in that memorial ground. In the age where we have elusive and abstract artistic films where you're supposed to dissect a scene where they just take a piss in the toilet has really forced us to look at films on a deeper level where it shouldn't be. Sometimes films are meant to simply be watched.

SPR while had deeper meaning wasn't a film meant to have a hidden message. It's to make you understand some of the brutal experiences people went through in war. Most war films or shows follow that model. The Pacific primarily does that VERY well despite being extremely depressing. And for the men who sacrificed themselves, they've certainly turned into "monsters" in comparison to what they used to be. So just like Ryan they do not feel their lives are "worth" returning home to because they have stained their own identity so much. War films however can only do so much with that kind of thing.

[–] nospar122 9 years ago

Sorry, all wrong. This lost because Harvey Weinstein, "Shakespeare's" producer, lobbied, cajoled, bullied and even threatened voters on numerous occasions. He badmouthed "Private Ryan" and touted the merits of his own film. Apparently, it was enough to persuade voters to vote for his inferior film. He tried the same thing again four years later with "Gangs of New York," but this time the voters weren't having it. There was a big backlash against him, and despite 10 nominations, "Gangs" won absolutely zero Oscars, losing Best Picture to the run-of-the-mill "Chicago." Weinstein learned his lesson and toned it down after that. This was all widely reported at the time.

[–] RoadKillBill1 9 years ago

Thanks for this. I'm not really well-versed on the inner workings of Hollywood. But, it totally makes sense that it was all politics.

TNSTAAFL

[–] DaveR011 9 years ago

That and Shakespeare in Love is a genuinely excellent film - well written, original, and superbly acted. Outside the opening scene, I've always thought SPR was competently done and well acted, but ultimately rather ordinary. I think the identity of some of the big name supporting aactord tend to show this. SiL had Dame Judy Dench whose eight minutes of screen time won her a Best Supporting Actress Oscar. SPR had 51-year old Ted Danson as a Ranger Captain for six minutes. He wasn't nominated.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] archmaker1 9 years ago

And Weinstein threw a million TV adds touting the movie as the most joyful and entertaining experience anyone could ever have anywhere! A brilliant way to appeal to both average movie goers and snobs. This allowed all the industry wives who really do the voting to pat themselves on the back for rewarding "art" over commerce. There has never been an ad blitz like that before or since and I think you're right, they realized they'd been had. SiL is a fine movie, but SPR was a landmark film, technically and emotionally, and should have won.

[–] joed1667 9 years ago

All I know is that ever since SPR lost to SiL, I have never watched the Oscars again. I felt that this was politics. Hollywood is not fond of war movies even though a few have won over the years for Best Picture, like Platoon and Patton, and they are not fond of Steven Speilberg either who has received many of snubs. He's received several Oscars but no where near what he deserves otherwise it would be even more blatantly obvious.

As for SPR, here you had a movie in which after it ended and people walked out, young people were coming up to the elderly and thanking them for what their generation did. It also got many veterans to finally open up and talk about what was bottled up inside them for decades. Very few movies have had that kind of impact on people.

I personally give those voting on the Oscars as much credibility as the powers to be who decide who gets a star. I read more about that after Martin Milner passed away, that he does not have a star and it was more about politics and money and despite having several highly successful TV shows and a long career in television and movies, he didn't fit the mold. A family man who was happily married to only one women in his life since 1957 I believe.