I have been waiting for this year for a loooong time because besides 2005 with Crash and Brokeback Mountain, this is the first year with major controversy and lots of discussion about if the right winner was picked, which can be extended to Best Actor, too. So I finally get to watch these films and weigh in on what I think deserves to be the winner. This also isn't a very diverse group if you look at the nominees. Three films about World War II and two films about Elizabethan England. Probably the only time ever you'll see two subjects dominate the films nominated in this category.
1998 Best Picture
Shakespeare in Love
This is a film I had been wanting to see for ages. Back in 1998 is my first real rooting interest in Oscar. Before that I didn't care, but this time I had seen Saving Private Ryan (and nothing else) and wanted it to win so badly. So when Shakespeare in Love won, I was devastated! How could a stupid romantic comedy win over an epic war story?! That might still need to be answered later on but this film is one seriously funny take on Romeo and Juliet. I had no idea this film would be so enjoyable! Like I knew it was a romantic comedy but I thought it was more heavy on the romantic and light on the comedy but the comedy really rules the whole story and makes it such a fun watch. You've got these characters that make the comedy parts look so effortless that I'm howling throughout the film. The acting is top notch, which should be expected when it comes to a Best Picture winner. Fiennes and Paltrow have a very palpable and believable romance going on and you can't help but root for it, which is the sign of a good story. The story itself is very clever. It tells (fictionally) how William Shakespeare came up with the idea for Romeo and Juliet, mirroring his own love life with a woman out of his league. The thing about Shakespeare in Love is that it seems more enjoyable for those that know Shakespeare and for those that know about the theater lifestyle. There's so many jokes that I think others might miss because it's specific to the theater world and thankfully that's the majority of women I've dated. I think that's a big reason why this was such a hit with the Academy, besides the Miramax factor, because it was a fun take on acting and the whole creative process that everyone can relate to from Hollywood. Like Shakespeare's plays which had to appeal to the groundlings, the people who paid little to come stand and watch, this film appeals to the masses with comedy, a convincing love story, nudity, action, and an affinity for pleasing the common person. This is a good film, maybe even worthy of Best Picture, so don't let anyone tell you it's a travesty or one of the worst wins of all time because that person has no clue what they are talking about. Shakespeare in Love is a wonderful film.
Elizabeth
I was prepared after watching the second film for a flashy, yet boring film about Elizabeth, assuming it would have the same style. I was pleasantly surprised that this one was the stronger film overall and was just thoroughly more enjoyable. Elizabeth tells the story of how the woman ultimately went from political prisoner to the Virgin Queen, one of the most powerful women to ever live. That transformation from young, timid girl to badass Queen is part of what makes Elizabeth so entertaining. Cate Blanchett gives a very strong performance as Elizabeth and the supporting players are all pretty good, as well. This film even shares Geoffrey Rush and Joseph Fiennes with Shakespeare in Love. One of the things I didn't like about the second film (from 2007) was the direction was so flashy and more in the way than was necessary, but in this film you can see those flashes they just aren't as overbearing. At times, this film hearkens back to the old costume dramas with some of the shots which I can only assume is a nod to this film's lineage. It works in the film's favor, though, which establishes this as a serious period piece. However, the film is also at times very electric and dynamic with some of the shots and compositions. It gives a stuffy subject some fresh air and makes for a more compelling story. I read online that Christopher Eccelston (Duke of Norfolk) was instructed to constantly be on the move to give himself more sense of action sense his "villain" was more the palace intrigue type than action star. That choice works well for the film because keeping Eccleston static would have changed the tone of the film dramatically and probably not have been as effective. Elizabeth lives and dies on Blanchett's performance as she sets the example for what the film should be: strong, confident, and authoritative. Elizabeth is a good film that probably gets overlooked in a year that features controversy not involving this film. Don't let that deter you in giving this really good film a deserving watch.
Life is Beautiful
This was another film that I was looking froward to finally seeing so that I could clear up whether or not it was truly a bad film or if the hate was unwarranted or if Roberto Benigni was the worst winner ever. He may just be one of the worst Best Actor winners, though not because he's god awful or anything, it's just that the performance doesn't fit the second half of the film very well, even if I understand what he was going for. And Life is Beautiful is very much two different films splitting this one in half. The beginning is kind of the Italian screwball/slapstick comedy where Benigni keeps meeting this woman in 'cute' ways and he's a waiter that also keeps finding himself in situations he needs to quickly get out of. It's purely comedic stuff which actually isn't half bad. The slapstick nature of the humor does begin to wear thin after awhile and there's not too much of a strong plot. There are the undercurrents of the fascism movement running through the film but it's alluded to in playful, funny, mocking ways instead of addressed head on. Part of the success of this film is whether or not you can stomach Benigni for the entirety of it because that brand of comedy can only go so far and especially after the turn into the second half when we get into the Holocaust stuff, does it start to seem weird and inappropriate. I'm not sure how dealing with an event so horrid as the Holocaust with comedy, even at it's most delicate, would ever really work. I get the message of hope that's trying to be conveyed in regards to Benigni telling his son it's all a game. But I don't know if you can whitewash such an event and have it truly work well. It really loses it's comedic steam, for one, and doesn't balance in any drama or anything remotely like it. The main thing it had going for it for me was that it was very reminiscent of old Hollywood type of movies in the way it looked and the sets it had. I definitely liked some of the grandeur of the look like in the hotel and some of the homes but that's not really something that can prop this up as a Best Picture Oscar contender. A Holocaust film of this sort would never be something that I'd really want to watch, though Life is Beautiful definitely tries to make a case for itself. I won't say it's terrible and it certainly has it's merits, but I can't say I'm a fan of it all.
Saving Private Ryan
Saving Private Ryan. That name alone evokes thoughts of it being one of the greatest war films of all time. This is certainly one of Spielberg's best films he's ever made which is why he rightly won Best Director. He probably could have and should have won Best Director based on the first 30 minutes alone. The D-Day beach storming scenes were like nothing we had ever seen before. Sure, war films had been gritty and bloody and violent before, but this film made the action to be so visceral, intense, and personal that you felt you were there trying to dodge the bullets yourself. It was almost as if you could feel the sand and the bullets whizzing past, as if you could smell the smoke and the death all around you. It was sheer brilliance that really sucks you in and before you know it you're almost an hour into the film and it feels like 10 minutes. I know the criticisms have been leveled at the film for being two great long scenes bookending a boring middle part with an unlikely story but I have to disagree. The middle is where you get your character depth and learn about them personally and start to really invest in their safety. It also showcases the different situations and stories of the war that could be found in France at the time. By that I mean, it does try to cram a few interesting plot lines or quirky things into the bigger picture that still make sense overall. We hear about the 101st getting scattered about and the planes crashing, letting the German POW go only for him to end up coming back to the final battle at the end, characters dying, meeting the other Private Ryan. There's a lot going on in the middle that keeps it from being far from boring. Obviously the two big battles are the highlights of the film and rightfully so because they are terrific in both scope and execution. I think Hanks does phenomenal work, the cinematography is amazing, the sound is some of the best I've heard in a film to actually draw you in and make you think you're right there in the thick of it. Overall, this probably would have been a better Best Picture winner strictly on the strength of it's lasting appeal and contribution to popular culture. There's no denying Saving Private Ryan is a great film.
The Thin Red Line
There's one thing about Terrence Malick films and that's that they are beautiful, absolutely gorgeous to look at. So this was Malick's first film in 20 years since 1978's Days of Heaven. This has all the traditional Malick shots but they fortunately aren't done to excess like some of his future films. Here those sumptuous landscape shots really add to the atmosphere and aren't the pretentious garbage that they can/will become in later films. No endless shots of the camera twirling in the trees or gliding along grass/wheat/whatever. Yes, there are shots of trees as if taking it from ground view looking up and some grass gliding shots but they all serve to enhance the film. The thing about The Thin Red Line is that nature is a character just as much as any human is in this film. That makes sense seeing as this is a World War II film set on Guadalcanal where the jungle and thick vegetation reigns supreme. So the focus on the trees and grass and animals makes sense given that the soldiers have to deal with all of that on a daily basis. The story is still light as is Malick's style. It focuses on a large group of soldiers on Guadalcanal going through the landing and subsequent occupation. There's a lot of prominent actors who are mostly given equal screen time although some get considerably less. I feel bad for Adrien Brody who was supposed to be the main character and then in editing was chopped down to barely being in the film. I feel like this film does have a lot to say about the absurdity of war, the loneliness, the desperation, the hatred of it, the ineptitude and pointlessness of the whole thing, nature of course, and a multitude of other subjects. The action scenes are just as great as the ones in Saving Private Ryan, maybe even more so because Malick's style lends itself more to intimacy and personal connection, so seeing these guys refuse to charge up a ridge on a certain death trap or a small squad taking out a bunker feels very close and intense. It's funny because SPR shows what big set pieces and lot of money can give you for a war film while this one shows what you can get from on location shooting and a smaller scope. It's a wonder that both films were made in the same year. The music is also fantastic as Hans Zimmer's 'Journey to the Line' is something I listen to randomly because it's so beautiful and haunting. The Thin Red Line is more of an experience than any of the other nominees, one that should be savored because Malick is such a dense director. This is a really amazing film that I'm glad got some recognition.
This has got to be the hardest Best Picture race to call so far. I'm really fucking stumped right now. So Life is Beautiful is my obvious 5th choice. I would never have nominated it in the first place but laughing at the Holocaust is just a no go. Elizabeth is 4th because while it is really interesting and entertaining, it doesn't hold a candle to the other three. And here is the problem: which of the remaining three do I make the winner and in what order? I was really surprised at liking Shakespeare in Love. It was hilarious and a worthy enough winner even if I would probably take one of the two war films ahead of it. But which one? Saving Private Ryan is a classic everyone has seen and is really great. But The Thin Red Line is so cerebral and introspective that it totally works for me. SPR would stand the test of time as a classic Oscar winner, for sure, so that would be a fine choice. But I'm kinda leading towards The Thin Red Line just because it is a bit more involved and less studio war film-like. I reserve the right to switch them at any time, though!
Oscar Winner: Shakespeare in Love
My Winner: The Thin Red Line
Saving Private Ryan
Shakespeare in Love
Elizabeth
Life is Beautiful
No comments:
Post a Comment