One of the most overrated films of all time-Shakespeare in Love was robbed of 3 Oscars

Rating: 1/10 (18 February 2020)

There is a weird mythology concerning Saving Private Ryan (SPR) and Shakespeare in Love (SiL) at the Oscars. The myth has it that during the award season SPR simply cleaned up shop until the Oscars announced that SiL won best picture-somehow!- and it was totally out of left field; so much so that it required explanation. I don't know where this myth comes from but it is entirely revisionist. As a point of fact SiL was as well represented in the award season as SPR was and critically the films actually split the major awards all season. Just to stay with the big 3: Golden Globes split with SPR getting director and drama; SiL won screenplay (as a point of fact SiL never lost screenplay to SPR in any award) and Comedy. At the BAFTAs SiL got film and SPR got director, which was repeated at the Oscars. The guild awards split as well; SiL got the critical SAG awards, the WGA and a few of the other guilds (i.e. costumes). SPR picked up the PGA, DGA and Eddie. It is fair to say that SPR was the "frontrunner" because of the DGA but the notion that SiL somehow just won the BP Oscar is utter nonsense. I wouldn't have bet on SPR. In anycase this mythology has annoyed me since about 2003 when I first started to hear it. Undoubtedly this colors my perception of the film but I just rewatched SPR for the first time in a decade and it confirms that it was a terrible film. Not only is SiL getting best picture deserved it should have also won editing, directing and especially cinematography.
Ryan's script is truly atrocious. It is a workman like script combining-badly!-several tropes from WWII movies. Much of the resulting drama feels like warmed over hash of better and more insightful films. I think the script adds some pretty disgusting propagandist elements. Many of the characters that show basic humanity-i.e. Wade, Upham, Carparzo-end up dead or as war criminals but without their crimes being rebuked. These elements seem to embrace total war and giving no quarter as the only proper orientation; the overall film is so badly written it is hard to tell the writer's intent. It is especially stark with Upham. His entire character arch feels *redemptive* for first being naive and second being a coward/shellshocked. It is possible that the writer intended for the arch to be punitive BUT Upham's goodness wasn't established per se but his naivety was . And how Spielberg shoots the key moment-and the music-seems celebratory. When I saw this back in the 90's the most chilling part of the film was watching a group of Americans cheer and clap at their countrymen committing a war crime. War films often struggle with not glorifying war-I think this problem is intractable-but Ryan doesn't even bother to kick against this tendency. The cause was just so let's glorify the fatherland.
(The film also is too US centric and by its very plot overstates the importance of the Normandy operation . The war in Europe was largely won on the back of the USSR)
Undoubtedly, Spielberg and his army of techs produced some compelling war battle footage. I don't think much of this film-at all-but the first 50 minutes or so is effective at generating a visceral reaction. But the film never again raises to that intensity and the overall narrative feels anti-climatic as a result. There script is so trope ridden that the unflinching realism feels misplaced. To what end is the director putting his skill? To demonstrate that war is hell? Thanks I got that 10 minutes ago. The whole thing is an artless use of cinematic technique to invoke strong gut emotions...and giving the literal US flag bookends the film absolutely is invoking strong nationalist fervor. There's two P words that come to mind for films that do *that.* I'll spell them out for the defenders of this dreck: propaganda and pornography.
The acting/casting-Hanks aside-is also a major source of annoyance. No one gives a bad performance per se but the characters are all such ciphers that the various stars feel out of place, especially today. I burst out laughing when Nathan Fillion showed up. I couldn't help but think about Merlot when Giamatti got his extended cameo. The cast would have done far better sticking to unknowns like Dunkirk or 1917 did. (Again this is partially the result of time moving on.)
I also must say I loathed the cinematography. The acid washed out look, the shaky cam, the inexplicable blurring of the image all haven't aged well today and even the film's visceral power has dulled.
This is utterly awful film.