MovieChat Forums > Shakespeare in Love (1999) Discussion > This Can't be Said Enough

This Can't be Said Enough

posted 12 years ago by livings14
63 replies | jump to latest

I think it is generally accepted that Saving Private Ryan lost to Shakespeare in love because Harvey Weinstein bought oscar votes. There are always going to be people who like one movie better than another, and I certainly can't say that it is impossible to like SIL more than SPR, or even that its a better film. But it is hard to come up with an example of the academy getting it more wrong than it did in 98. SPR had veterans puking in their seats and people passing out in aisles. It was one of the most powerful film experiences I have ever had, and that is certainly the experience hundreds of thousands of audience members had. It is also a cheesy, sentimental, cliched piece of film-making, but that was totally appropriate considering the subject matter (it was accessible to a wider audience - this is an asset of the film, not a detriment). The bottom line is that SPR changed the way people make war movies. There's before SPR and there's after. It created a new legion of war movie fans as well. And it started a national craze around the 'greatest generation' that lasted for years. SIL's impact? Beyond chat rooms frequented by shakespeare fans (and paltrow's career), there was none.

Remember, this is best picture, not best film. The best written, best directed movie shouldn't necessarily win the award. SPR was revolutionary; SIL is just an ordinary, well done movie...utterly forgettable other than for the fact that it beat SPR in the best picture race.

It's not really a close call, and history has certainly recognized that fact (SPR is considered one the greatest films of all time, while SIL has been all but forgotten). That SIL fans protest this inevitability is not surprising; SIL is a literary film made for an audience that will never understand why SPR, populist as it is, is a far superior picture.

[–] chadsarah 12 years ago

It's not a close call? I agree. Shakespeare in Love is far superior to Saving Private Ryan. Obviously this is my opinion and I admit to be in the minority but I really question your sense of film history when you talk about SPR changing the way people make war movies. Have you seen that many war movies? SPR is one of the least challenging war film I've ever seen. True, the battle sequences are amazing but the story is typical and flat with one of the most sentimental and manipulative endings ever. When I left the theater I was greatly disappointed and cheered when SIL won that year. For me a great war film should be an anti-war film and I think Spielberg tried yet ultimately failed. The violence in this film was graphic and horrible but also sensationalized to the point where it does the very thing bad war films of the past have done and that's make war "cool" The reason people want to believe SPR is better is because it's cool and action packed (like a video game) while SIL is an artsy costume romance (for theater nerds). SPR starts off well but is inconsisent with a medicre ending while SIL builds from one great scene to another for a memorable conclusion. Yet this is just an opinion. It just so happens that a majority of the Academy agreed with me that year. This fact will aways make me smile and seeing people "rage" about SPR being "robbed" will always make me laugh.

[–] Whoah10115 12 years ago

For you a great war film should be an anti-war film and that's lame. Especially lame because the carnage in Saving Private Ryan serves as just such...carnage.

[–] morris45 11 years ago

I think Chadsarah nailed it. No one ever talks about SIL except to remember that it's the movie that took SPR Best Picture Award. And the same can be said about Crash, Forrest Gump, The English Patient, Ordinary People, Out of Africa or The Departed. Everyone mention them only when is time to talk about the movie that should've won in the first place. That's the ultimate accomplishment, screw the award.

And the same thing will happen to 12 years a slave. Gravity will be seen a a true masterpiece, while 12YAS will be seen as a good, albeit formulaic and ordinary movie and that's it. Just wait.

[–] Bobtheawesome 11 years ago

In what world do people only remember Forrest Gump and The Departed for winning best picture? Forrest Gump is one of the most iconic films of all time, and The Departed is still very popular and celebrated, what movie exactly did Departed steal the oscar from anyway?

I also disagree about Gravity, 12 years a slave is the far superior movie, Gravity had excellent visual effects and an above average performance by Sandra Bullock. 12 Years a slave had an infinitely more compelling story and great performances across the board.

I do agree with Saving Private Ryan being better than Shakespeare in love

[–] sackofwhine 10 years ago

Dude the departed was by far the best movie of 2006, stop lying to yourself

[–] jtf1986 9 years ago

Gravity? Really? Unless someone has a gigantic, state of the art home theater system what is the point of seeing the home release of the movie?

[–] karaladh 11 years ago

Saving Private Ryan is not a great war film. Saving Private Ryan is a Spielberg film, which is enough to call it great according to most average movie-goers. In reality, the only game-changing films Spielberg ever did were Schindler's List and Jaws, though the latter has barely stood the test of time. I'd consider Raiders of the Lost Ark if you got me drunk, but I wouldn't even consider E.T. or The Color Purple if you put a knife under my throat.

Saving Private Ryan did have an impact, but a negative one: it became the patient zero for countless cheesy, empty war films in the following decade. The only worthy thing about this movie is indeed the D-day sequence, which shows-off all the talent Spielberg has, but rarely exploits.

The room's a wreck, but her napkin is folded.

[–] sevenmarie 10 years ago

In reality, the only game-changing films Spielberg ever did were Schindler's List and Jaws

what about Jurassic Park?

[–] karaladh 10 years ago

Jurassic Park would go through the same predicament as Saving Private Ryan.

The room's a wreck, but her napkin is folded.

[–] sevenmarie 10 years ago

I disagree--Jurassic park was the first big movie to use CGI (which, btw, was well done enough that it still holds up today) and therefore revolutionized the movie industry. the SFX/CGI guys who worked on it said that if Spielberg had not done the CGI in the movie, it would not have taken off for 10+ more years.

that is game changing. weather you agree with the change or not, does not lessen the impact.

[–] karaladh 10 years ago

Well, you're right, game-chaging CAN be negative.

The room's a wreck, but her napkin is folded.

[–] bluesy 9 years ago

Finally someone i agree with and its no surprise that it comes from someone with an Irene Jacob pic from a Kieslowski movie ;) I never really understood the acclaim Spielberg got, he has great cinematographers and thats it. His work is manipulative, cliched, corny and conventional. He has nothing on the great arthouse directors from Europe and elsewhere ;)His recent movies are a giant bore as well, and even in Bridge of spies he manages to paint a fake patriotism picture as though Americans dont shoot on civilians crossing borders or fences (i guess he missed all the racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia in his celebrated country, what a fake)

[–] Movie_Buff_Brad 9 years ago

Finally someone i agree with and its no surprise that it comes from someone with an Irene Jacob pic from a Kieslowski movie

Does it get tiring being a walking stereotype?

FYC: Keanu Reeves https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvaCWTkSXdE

[–] paulski-98155 8 years ago

Saving Private Ryan did have an impact, but a negative one: it became the patient zero for countless cheesy, empty war films in the following decade.

You neglect to mention it was also responsible for Band of Brothers, still one of the finest TV series ever filmed. And the 'lesser copycat' argument can be used against almost any groundbreaking film, and I would argue is one of the very things that mark it as groundbreaking - namely that you see a lot of subsequent films that borrow from the source material and fail to live up to its quality, Jaws being a classic example of this - think how many god awful films that spawned.

[–] mattaca 12 years ago

I also found the story of SPR flat and the ending very schmaltzy. SIL, on the other hand, had some of the best writing and one of the most creative plots of any movie I've seen. It's generally harder to get recognized by the Academy for comedy or romance than for drama. SIL won because it successfully did all three, while simultaneously interweaving commentary on the play, its author, and its literary critics. That is an incredibly difficult task. I think the Academy recognized the right film.

[–] kategriffin0 10 years ago

You are so right..the pacing in SIL is stupendous..it constantly builds upon the last scene, the previous dialogue..it is like a lovely symphony and the sound track enhances the sensation...it all holds together so beautifully. SPR has great scenes but does not have the seamless pacing of SIL..its clunky. And the final scene of SIL is heads and shoulders above SPR.

[–] alfa-16 12 years ago

It has very definitely been said enough.

I don't know where you're getting your movie history from. Personally I don't know anyone who thinks that SPR is the greatest film of all time. I don't even know many people who think it was the best war film of 1998. The Thin Red Line took that honour. But I know plenty of film fans who think that Stoppard's script is the funniest of the last 30 years.

It has been said so many times that legend has grown up on its hairy behind, like the weeping vets legend. I meet American vets as I have a house near Utah beach on the Cotentin Peninsula. Their reaction to SPR is consistent. Yes the first 19 minutes is very accurate but if any troop had paraded round the battle area the way Hanks' platoon did, they wouldn't have lasted an hour.

Not only is it cheesy, it's historically dishonest. Since 80% of the German Army was ranged against the British and Canadian Army in the Battle of Normandy, it's inappropriate to write it out. It's even more inappropriate, having written it out, to include a sneering reference to the British Commander in charge of the battle, the second largest of the war. French people now believe they were rescued solely by the Americans. SPR is their Battle of Normandy history. And Band of Brothers just made things worse.

I think it's karma that SPR was knocked out of Oscar history by a British film. And how many comedies win Oscars? More karma.

[–] Squeeth2 12 years ago

80%?

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

[–] alfa-16 12 years ago

Ish.

[–] Squeeth2 12 years ago

I don't know (apart from tanks) but it seems a lot. Apropos, I rewrote the wiki page for Ginchy 1916 then decided that I'd have to plough through Guillemont to make sense of it (what with the Sixth Army doing the hokey cokey to the south and the Reserve Army plugging away to the north) but I've only just got back into it having had a critical illness.

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

[–] alfa-16 12 years ago

Don't like the sound of that. Hope you're OK.

After the lost opportunity to take Caen in the first day or so, the battle to move the Germans backwards across the Seine was concentrated on the eastern front of the invasion area. At the end there were six armies fully engaged in an encircling movement and the tips of the pincers that closed decisively were Polish and Canadian. By then the number of American divisions had started to skyrocket.

Off to read your latest stuff on Wiki.

[–] Squeeth2 12 years ago

It was ManFlu but you know me, I don't complain.;O)

As it happens I don't think that Caen was on on the first day but it didn't matter in the end, because the attrition battle took place north and west rather than south and east of the city. Awkward for supply but probably predictable given German methods.

Ginchy isn't up yet but there's a draft here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keith-264/sandbox2 The trouble is that there were lots of small attacks by the three Anglo-French armies (four from September) and counter-attacks by one then two German armies. The British nomenclature "happens" to give the dates of the successful attacks so there is a lot to consolidate in each article (it's a bit like the Morval page). Guillemont was attacked from 22/23 July and only captured 3-6 September. Just to the north Delvile Wood, Longueval and High Wood were also being contested and the Reserve Army was bashing away at Pozieres. The French 6th Army narrative is something I have to glean from fragments in the OH, Philpott, Duffy and Doughty and the German side is even harder to find. Still it will give me scope to swipe at Prior and Wilson which I enjoy a lot. ;O)

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

[–] paulski-98155 8 years ago

On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.

Your 'ish' is off by around 25% unless you are suggesting that Utah and Omaha had little to no Germa forces present - which would seem especially strange seeing as the Americans also had the largest number of casualties (by some margin) on D-Day.

And if anyone relies on a Hollywood movie as there sole source of information on the D-Day landings then its hardly surprising they have an incorrect view of history. As for Band of Brothers it tells the story of a single US unit - if that was your sole source of information you would believe that airforce were the only troops in France - oddly enough stories told from a single perspective only tend to tell one side of the story.

[–] spookyrat1 12 years ago

Like some of the posters on this thread I'm a bit over this 1998 Academy Award debate.

They're both very good, but just such different films.

But I know which one I would prefer to watch more frequently...Shakespeare in Love.

@alpha-16

"But I know plenty of film fans who think that Stoppard's script is the funniest of the last 30 years."

A fantastic cast playing to one of the cleverest, wittiest and most comical scripts going.

It really is one of those films that never fails to reward audiences with additional viewings...just so entertaining!

Is she obedient?

As any mule in Christendom - but if you are the man to ride her, there are rubies in the saddlebag.

[–] aroian_99 11 years ago

I'm willing to listen to anyone's opinion, but two things you said stood out to me. First that 80% of the Germans went up against the British and Canadians at Normandy. That simply isn't so. Omaha Beach saw the most severe of all the fighting on D-Day. The second is even more erroneous...Thin Red Line was superior to Private Ryan? Are you kidding? Thin Red Line is virtually unwatchable. I've tried twice. The first time was in the theaters. I watched the whole thing waiting for it to be even remotely interesting! I've tried again on tv and have even spoken to many friends who are movie buffs. No on has ever even said it was good. The biggest upset that year was Thin Red Line getting nominated.

[–] Ralph-Jennings 9 years ago

The 80% figure is accurate. True is that Omaha Beach saw the most intense fighting and resistance from the Germans because the battery above the beach had not been previously knocked out but more significantly that a German Division moved into the area shortly before the invasion. There is documentary evidence to support this.
The opening sequence to Saving Private Ryan was monumental and harrowing to say the least. One can only feel sympathy for anybody who has lived through anything remotely similar. That said, unfortunately the rest of the film could not and did not live up to the opening sequences. Storyline and plot being dire. Shakespeare In Love on the other hand has artistic merit running through each line of dialogue and plot sequences that engage and compel you keep viewing. The film editing deserves particular praise in my opinion , providing pace and consistency, allowing the brain breathing apace to catch up and assess some of the more intense dialogue exchanges. Acting ability superb from a cast well appointed to give the 16th Century language its due and justice, including a Ben Affleck who just about manages to make his English accent last the length of the film. He was , however, seriously upstaged by both Joseph Fiennes and Colin Firth though. Not only was Shakespeare In Love the best film of 1998 but its one of the best films of all time.

[–] paulski-98155 8 years ago

The 80% figure is accurate.

According to whom? The US forces landed more soldiers on the beaches than any other country and dropped more paratroopers in then any other country. they also had the heaviest casualties of D-Day so i would be really interested to see how that 80% figure was achieved.

That said, unfortunately the rest of the film could not and did not live up to the opening sequences.

The opening twenty minutes of SPR is generally considered to the be the best and most accurate capture of the horrors of war ever capture don celluloid - its hardly surprising that the rest of the film doesn't quite manage to capture that level of intensity.

Storyline and plot being dire.

'Dire' in what way - the story line is loosely based on real events - what about it do you feel was so bad as to describe it as 'dire'?

[–] alfa-16 8 years ago

You need to read a book. Or two.

The majority of German forces were to the east of the landing beaches, waiting for the arrival of an invasion at Calais. These turned against the eastern front of the Allied beach-head, which is where the British forces were.

This is a good account by a good writer. You can get more accurate but not more readable or more coherent on strategy. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1844137392/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

US Airborne operations 5th-7th June involved 13,100 paratroopers and glider-borne infantry. British Army number was 16,000 in Operation Tonga, which took and secured the eastern flank of the invasion. That was as hard fought as anything on D Day and will be the subject of a new film in 2017. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5349998/board/threads/

The ferocity of the fighting on Omaha was in part caused by the failure of the US Navy to crater the beach with is rockets, firing them from 7000m rather than 5000m and launching its DD swimming tanks from too far out. Almost all the Omaha DD Tanks failed to make the beach which meant there was no artillery support, making conditions very different on the beach from the other landing places.

It's true that a lot of people make grand claims for the first 20 minutes but the most accurate capture of the horrors of war is more widely claimed for the Russian film Come and See. Try that out http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091251/reference

That's too much military history for a romantic comedy, based on Elizabethan theatre but downsizing SPR's claims is part of the job.

[–] Squeeth2 8 years ago

Quite agree about Idi i Smotri (a Belorussian film) but I've had a bone to pick with Keegan since the Lipstadt trial, where he showed himself up to be an establishment prick.

Marlon, Claudia & Dimby the cats 1989-2010. Clio the cat, July 1997 - 1 May 2016.

[–] paulski-98155 8 years ago

You need to read a book. Or two.

I have thanks - but cheers for the condescending tone, doesn't make you sound like a dick in the slightest.

The majority of German forces were to the east of the landing beaches, waiting for the arrival of an invasion at Calais. These turned against the eastern front of the Allied beach-head, which is where the British forces were

And the 15th Army which were stationed at Calais didn't turn up until seven weeks after D-Day - some six weeks after the events of Saving Private Ryan finish. So could you please clarify whether you believe that during the events of Saving Private Ryan that British and Canadian troops faced 80% of the German resistance - and if not exactly what was your point?

US Airborne operations 5th-7th June involved 13,100 paratroopers and glider-borne infantry. British Army number was 16,000 in Operation Tonga, which took and secured the eastern flank of the invasion. That was as hard fought as anything on D Day and will be the subject of a new film in 2017.

And? At what point does Saving Private Ryan attempt to portray itself as a complete history of the Battle of Normandy? It tells the story of a small group of soldiers travelling through a small geographic area (Omaha beach and five miles inland) over a relatively small period of time (one week) and coming into contact with only a small amount of other soldiers - how is that writing Britain and Canada out of the story? Is this film about Operation Tonga going to tell the story of US soldiers in depth too? SPR tells the story of American soldiers in an area that was largely populated by American and German soldiers and not British and Canadian - I'd argue that their inclusion would be simply shoehorning them into a story out of context, because in all likeliness they would not have been in the area that this film includes.

The ferocity of the fighting on Omaha was in part caused by the failure of the US Navy to crater the beach with is rockets, firing them from 7000m rather than 5000m and launching its DD swimming tanks from too far out. Almost all the Omaha DD Tanks failed to make the beach which meant there was no artillery support, making conditions very different on the beach from the other landing places.

Again - and? All your point does is reinforce the fact that your 80% statement with regards to this film is inaccurate as much of the German fighting force at Omaha was intact and at full strength.

[–] Suzume-san 8 years ago

Could you boys please go and discuss military history on the SPR board, and leave this one for us fans of literary wit? Thank you.

[–] paulski-98155 8 years ago

The posts are on topic to the original thread subject - if you don't like it take it up with the OP.

[–] alfa-16 8 years ago

Around 75% of the posts in here a complain that this film deprived Saving Private Ryan of its just rewards.

It didn't. And I didn't take issue with it not representing the whole of the Battle of Normandy, merely your account of the American dominance in a battle in which the German effort was mostly concentrated of the British Army's flank of the invasion beaches. It does not, in fact, ignore the British contribution. Ted Danson's character makes a pejorative reference to Monty holding things up. Better to have stayed quiet than make just one disparaging remark.

SPR is 19 minutes of accurate recreation followed by a lot of wildly inaccurate military manoeuvres, topped and tailed by some ridiculously sentimental claptrap.

There are lots of people waiting to spank your ass in other forums, with accurate data about the Battle of Normandy. There's no need to make this one. And reading the Keegan book ought to change your perspective. It's called Six Armies in Normandy.

Six.

[–] paulski-98155 8 years ago

merely your account of the American dominance

Did I make Saving private Ryan? I'm not even American so I'm curious as to how it is 'your account'. There has been no claim of dominance other than to point out that the Americans provided more troops than either the British or Canadians and that they had higher casualties. You were the one who made the 80% claim, not me.

the German effort was mostly concentrated of the British Army's flank of the invasion beaches.

No it wasn't - as has been pointed out to you they didn't turn up until after the time period in which this film is set - so your point is moot.

It does not, in fact, ignore the British contribution. Ted Danson's character makes a pejorative reference to Monty holding things up. Better to have stayed quiet than make just one disparaging remark.

Yeah, because I bet American Officers never made disparaging remarks about high ranking officers! How dare they include something that is realistic!

SPR is 19 minutes of accurate recreation followed by a lot of wildly inaccurate military manoeuvres, topped and tailed by some ridiculously sentimental claptrap.

in your opinion - which was not what was being discussed here and seems to be heavily skewed by some perceived slight from the film makers - what was is the claim you made regarding SPR being sacrilegious in ignoring the British and Canadian effort because they faced 80% of the Germans - despite the fact that this isn't the case because what you refer to never occured during the time period in which the film was set - which beggars the question - once again, seeing as you seem to be desperately avoiding it - what point are you trying to make? SPR told a story of a handful of American soldiers operating over a short period of time in an area dominated by American and German troops - so what precisely did the film makers do wrong? Try and be precise.

I could read Keegan's book from now until the end of time - it still would never tell me that during the time period in which SPR occurs the British and Canadian Army faced 80% of the German resistance because that never happened - a fact I get the impression you are aware of but want to desperately avoid.

[–] Squeeth2 8 years ago

Monty's Men: The British Army and the Liberation of Europe (2014) by John Buckley

Colossal Cracks: Montgomery's 21st Army Group in Northwest Europe, 1944-45 (2007) by Stephen Ashley Hart

Normandy 1944: German Military Organization, Combat Power and Organizational Effectiveness (2000) by Niklas Zetterling

Fields of Fire: The Canadians in Normandy (2004) Terry Copp

Stopping the Panzers: The Untold Story of D-Day (2014) by Marc Milner

Caen Controversy: The Battle for Sword Beach 1944 (2014) by Andrew Stewart

18 Platoon (1998) by Sydney Jary

Victory at Mortain: Stopping Hitler's Panzer Counter-offensive (2002) by Mark Reardon

Marlon, Claudia & Dimby the cats 1989-2010. Clio the cat, July 1997 - 1 May 2016.

[–] alfa-16 8 years ago

He'll never read one. He admits it. He'll never risk his prejudices.

[–] Squeeth2 8 years ago

Pity that; the Zetterling book was interesting (he put a lot of it on t'interweb) because he demonstrated that Allied claims of German tanks destroyed were exaggerated. He spoilt the effect by including daily operational states, which showed that if you use the criterion "how many tanks are available this morning" rather than how many have been written off, the attrition of the Panzerwaffe is glaring. Between 6 and 9 June, the operational readiness in the three panzer divisions in action fell from near 100% to 30-60%. The British "debacle" at Villers Bocage reduced the 45 Tigers of Heavy SS Panzer Battalion 101 to 16 runners; the daily availability never rose above 22 for the rest of the Normandy gig. The Allied strategy was attritional and succeeded two weeks ahead of schedule.

Marlon, Claudia & Dimby the cats 1989-2010. Clio the cat, July 1997 - 1 May 2016.

[–] Anderz90 12 years ago

eh, I think it had to do with there being two war movies up for BP and the votes getting split between the two.

lots sometimes!

[–] rumipoet24 12 years ago

It created a new legion of war movie fans as well. And it started a national craze around the 'greatest generation' that lasted for years. SIL's impact? Beyond chat rooms frequented by shakespeare fans (and paltrow's career), there was none.

And maybe here's the rub, ..think of a nation in which a person is murdered every 17 minutes? A nation with cities that have higher murder rates than war torn Iraq? Or a nation in which a rape occurs every 6 minutes? A nation in which 1 in 4 women will be raped before graduating college and 97% of rapists will never spend a day in jail? A nation in which a violent crime occurs every 26.2 seconds and a property crime occurs every 3.5 seconds? A nation that comprises 5% of the world’s population but a world-leading 25% of the world’s prison population...

I love the United States, so I wish I could pretend the above facts are spurious...but they happen to be true. What is the solution? More glorified War films or showing that which inspires us to love, to dream to seek adventures of the soul & mind?

[–] mikediastavrone96 12 years ago

1998 is one of the more interesting years. Considering circumstances at the time, Saving Private Ryan should have definitely won Best Picture. However, as the years have gone on, Saving Private Ryan and its flaws have become more visible and although the realistic action sequences are undeniable, they are only part of the film and the rest is a search for one guy. The film that has aged the best since 1998 and is a more challenging film is The Truman Show, which didn't even get nominated for Best Picture or give Jim Carrey any Oscar recognition for his outstanding performance.

[–] Cine-Freak 11 years ago

Well, it has been said often enough and its never right, that spr is the better film. It is not. It has an incredible beginning, one of if not the best war scenes in history - and than its business as usual. Thin red line was the best war movie of that year. And shakespeare won, because it was so elegantly crafted, ingeniously put together, weaving together facts and fiction, all this bigger and smaller clues to shakespeares plays and times - stuff, that the op probably just didnt get if he ever watched the movie properly at all - and it is simply a funny, heart warming and highly rewatchable movie.

[–] politicaldefiance 11 years ago

SPR had veterans puking in their seats and people passing out in aisles.

Well that obviously means it must be a good movie if you can get people to puke and pass out. I'm not sure which spectacle would be more entertaining to watch.

Anyways, to be honest, if we're talking about relevance from film scholars, historians, critics and even directors from around the globe, neither Saving Private Ryan or Shakespeare in Love have made that much of an impact. Neither of them were even mentioned on the Sight and Sound list from last year. AI, Close Encounters, E.T., Duel, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Jaws, Minority Report, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Schindler's List were all mentioned but Ryan was nowhere to be found. However, you know which of the best picture nominees from 1998 did make the cut? Take a look below:

http://explore.bfi.org.uk/sightandsoundpolls/2012/film/4ce2b8021b76d

[–] dsmith147-1 11 years ago

Uh, 1998 is the last year the Academy got it right.

There's no way for me to knock SPR, because I love SPR. But Shakespeare in Love is magic. It's unique. It's hugely inspired. And it's the best picture of 1998.

[–] iamdamnedbroke 11 years ago

It must have been magic, La Goop was quite good in her part(s)!

Although I don't think she deserved her gong, and I can't be arsed to look up her competition.

My feeling about the SPR v. SiL is that the former was manipulative BS, no matter how good the opening sequence was, and SiL was great in a way that any great movie is: more than the sum of its parts.

Compare it to a rotten main course v. a great dessert. You don't want to live on desserts, and perhaps the comparison is unfair, but that's life. I'd rather have a great dessert than a rotten main course.

PS, I am no military expert but my late DD was a veteran of WWII and there was never a more cynical man about war and armies than he. He absolutely loathed his time in the army, while never questioning the necessity of his service during that particular war. (He idolized FDR and Churchill, even though he knew they were politicians who lied.) IMO, The Thin Red Line conveyed this ambivalence very well. But it wasn't a good movie. Whereas SPR is a more skillfully made "product," but its infernal Spielberg adolescence reeked from every frame. That is the weird, wonderful and frustrating part of the movie-going experience. Sometimes bad movies can say great things. And sometimes great movies can suck. Go figure.