Best Picture Winners #6: Shakespeare in Love

In the history of the Oscars there have been several winners who have gone down in infamy not because of their victory but because of whom that victory was over. Few examples are more widely known than 1998’s winner, ‘Shakespeare in Love,’ a rom-com about William Shakespeare and his romance while writing ‘Romeo and Juliet.’ The movie that was widely expected to win was Steven Spielberg’s ‘Saving Private Ryan,’ a masterful World War 2 drama about a company of soldiers landing in Normandy on D-Day and their mission to save the life of a young soldier whose three brothers have all been killed. Just a few short years after finally winning his first two Oscars for ‘Schindler’s List,’ Spielberg was at the top of his game as the 90’s came to a close. When ‘Saving Private Ryan’ was given glowing reviews by audiences and critics alike, many assumed he would waltz his way towards another Director/Picture win. And yet when Oscars night was over, the ceremony had been mostly swept by the Elizabethan period piece, a shocking upset for most voters and viewers at home. But when we pull back the curtain and look at how these films were campaigned (especially who campaigned them) we see the clear answer as to how this upset occurred.

‘Shakespeare in Love’ was produced by Miramax, which in its less than 20 year existence as a company had produced nine films nominated for Best Picture, including ‘Shakespeare in Love’ and ‘Life is Beautiful,’ another 1998 film. The company was founded and run by the Weinstein brothers, Bob and Harvey, and started becoming successful in the late 1980’s. Their first Best picture winner was two years prior with ‘The English Patient,’ which won a whopping nine Oscars, though they’d had a few nominated films in the years leading up to their big win. One of the big aspects that was prominently known about Miramax was the levels to which Harvey Weinstein would get involved in projects. He was known for being ruthless in the cutting room, sometimes cutting entire characters or plot lines, and his abrasive personality made him well known as someone not to cross. However, it was his aggressive campaigning that shaped the way the Oscars would function, and his methods felt more akin to a political campaign than an awards show, complete with mudslinging and side deals. His ruthless campaigning became increasingly well known in Hollywood and increasingly effective. Between 1966 and 2016 he was thanked in more acceptance speeches than God, and second only to Steven Spielberg. And obviously he’s more well known now for being an absolute scumbag sexual assaulter, so the less I talk about him the better I feel.

So now for the actual movie! ‘Shakespeare in Love’ is an actually charming film, and surprisingly clever to boot. For a film about the Bard himself, there’s obviously a bunch of references to his works, his characters and many in-jokes which, as a big literature nerd, I really appreciated. The screenplay was written by Tom Stoppard, known for his play ‘Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead,’ adapted from Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet.’ The cast also fits their roles extremely well, from Joseph Fiennes to Geoffrey Rush to Dame Judi Dench (whom I will mention more in detail later) and Tom Wilkinson. One of the better aspects of this film’s writing and structure is that it utilizes many well-known tropes, including many of Shakespeare’s own tropes, but it recognizes the fact that they’re tropes and uses them in ways that add depth and humour remarkably well. Also, several of the characters were funny without trying, namely Ben Affleck. I think his character was funny to me mostly because it was Ben Affleck playing him, which felt more than a little out of place, but he had some great moments so I’m not complaining.

The film’s production value was also top notch. Obviously period pieces are known for their elaborate costumes, big set pieces and lavish feel, but this film did it expertly well. The sets feel very lived in and real, the costumes are fun, practical and colorful, and the whole vibe of the film was enchantingly old, if that makes sense. The music was also really nice, composer Stephen Warbeck did a wonderful job, and, listening to the soundtrack as I write this review has helped me see (hear technically) just how wonderful of a job he did. The score most prominently uses the string section of the orchestra, and while the woodwinds are also used from time to time, the brass is sparse and rarely heard from, which accurately reflects how an orchestra of this time period would sound, so bonus points there.

As for the performances themselves, though I have already touched on a few, there were obviously standouts. Joseph Fiennes’ Shakespere is not the kind of stuffy, uptight author one would likely envision, but rather a young, passionate yet headstrong author often behind on his commissions. He does pretty well as the lead, and he exudes an energetic charisma in almost every scene he is in. He is outshone by his love interest in the film, Gwyneth Paltrow, who plays lady Viola de Lessups and the crossdressed actor Thomas Kent, a disguise she adopts in order to achieve her goal of becoming an actress on the stage in a time where women were forbidden from acting in public. She plays her part really well, and though she won an Oscar for it, I can’t say it’s Oscar-worthy. The last performance we need to discuss is Dame Judi Dench, who plays Queen Elizabeth I, and despite having less than ten minutes of screentime, won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar. This still stands in a somewhat infamous regard, and is widely considered to be one of many condolence wins, Judi Dench had been nominated the year prior for Lead Actress for ‘Mrs. Brown,’ and was seen by many as the actress who should have won, so her win this year in a much smaller, almost bit-part in this film was seen as the Academy giving her an award at the soonest possible chance. I personally think she does a great job with the screentime she’s given, and she does command the attention of audience and scene alike each time she appears, especially in her final scene, but I don’t think she deserved the win for this particular performance. She does have some excellent lines though! “Careful with my name, you’ll wear it out,” and “I know something of a woman in a man’s profession; by God I do know about that.”

And now to wrap up my review. In total, I quite like this movie, probably more than most people, and I enjoyed my most recent rewatch of it. The comedy is still funny, the characters still charming, and the dialogue is still very witty. So, on it’s own merit it is a very good film. However, when it comes to the Oscars, especially for that year, even I cannot say that it deserved to win Best Picture. ‘Saving Private Ryan’ is widely seen as the deserving winner, and in this instance I actually have to agree with the common consensus. Spielberg’s masterful WW2 drama deserved to win the top prize, as well as a few others, such as John Williams winning for Original Score (different score category to ‘Shakespeare in Love’) which went to ‘Life is Beautiful,’ a movie I don’t have time to discuss (I don’t like it for the record). This very much feels like the kind of movie I would be sucked into voting for as an Academy voter and I don't know what that says about me.

Rating: 7/10

Did it Deserve Best Picture: Not really, no.