Not even really a Shakespeare adaptation, but that's what's so good about it!

Rating: 10/10 (4 April 2002)

There was quite a bit of understandable controversy over the Best Picture Oscar for 1998, because Shakespeare in Love and Saving Private Ryan were both tremendously good films, and the audience was very divided between the two. There is a definite popular influence on the workings of the Academy Awards (no matter how good a film is, it will never win a Best Picture Oscar unless it is hugely popular like Private Ryan and Shakespeare in Love. This is exactly why Memento never won a Best Picture Oscar), but in this case, I think that the quality of the historical element was one of the things that caused the Academy to sway more toward Shakespeare in Love than Saving Private Ryan. Obviously, both had enormous historical value, but I think that there are some notable differences between the two.
First of all, Saving Private Ryan is, for the most part, a presentation of true events that occurred during World War II. It is a spectacular portrayal of true events in American history, and should definitely be recognized for that. The fact that Saving Private Ryan did not win the Oscar does not mean that it is not widely, and correctly, considered to be one of the greatest war films ever made. In my opinion, the Oscar was given to Shakespeare in Love because of the enormous effort that was put into the film's story. Private Ryan had a great fictional story as well, but it is much more complicated to come up with such an elaborate story of something that may have happened in Shakespeare's life, and to tie that story in with what little we know about that life, than it is to create a fictional and touching story that takes place during war times.
Shakespeare in Love takes the unfortunately small amount of information that we have about Shakespeare's life and brings it to the screen in an amazingly realistic way. We know that this is all fiction, but the fact that it fits so well with the content of his plays and the society that he lived in makes it magical, because Shakespeare is literally brought to life for everyone to see. We get something brought to the screen that people have wondered about for centuries, so of COURSE it should win the Best Picture Oscar!

Granted, from the few portraits that survive, William Shakespeare was probably not nearly as attractive as Joseph Fiennes, but hey, Hollywood had to have its influence somewhere, right? Fiennes delivers a brilliant performance in this staggeringly well-made drama, which provides one of the best period settings ever created on film. When you watch Shakespeare in Love, you're THERE. And we not only get what would be on its own a fabulously developed and interesting story, but also some potential facts that interact with what we know about Shakespeare, such as possible inspirations for some of the characters in his plays, the most important of which is obviously Viola (although Shakespeare's infatuation with her does not exactly match her character in Twelfth Night), as well as some of the content of his plays, like Romeo and Juliet. There is also a brilliant subplot that makes Shakespeare himself the main cause of the rather mysterious death of Christopher Marlowe.
One of the main problems with movies these days is that people think that just because you get two great names together (like Spielberg and Hanks), then you have what should automatically be the Best Picture winner for that year. This is a hilariously erroneous way of examining the movies, especially when many of the people who think that way have not seen most of the other contenders for the Best Picture Oscar. Shakespeare in Love may not escape from that prejudice entirely, although I doubt there were many small films that matched it in quality. This is a spectacular drama, it has a remarkable score, brilliant direction, wonderful performances from everyone involved (Judi Dench's earth-quaking performance as Queen Elizabeth should be especially noted), and an ingeniously written script, which explored every element of Shakespeare himself, even going so far as to give him a rather short temper (`God's TEETH am I to suffer this constant stream of interruption?!'). True, we can't assume that such a great man as Shakespeare didn't have a temper (there are already enough rumors about him, such as the one that when he was writing his plays, he `never blotted a word.'), but quick to anger is not the kind of thing that is generally associated with him.
It is rather unfortunate that Shakespeare in Love and Saving Private Ryan came up against each other in the Academy Awards for 1998, because they are both worth a Best Picture Oscar, but since only one can be given out, I think that Shakespeare in Love has the edge on Private Ryan. Just barely, but it does. Shakespeare in Love is a nearly flawless film, and just such minor things like casting a late 1990s teen heartthrob like Matt Damon as Private Ryan (just in case you thought the movie took place anytime other than the summer of 1998) by itself knocked it at least a notch or two below Shakespeare in Love. The direction was spectacular, and Spielberg was rightfully given the Best Director Oscar, but when every element of the two movies are taken into account and compared, Private Ryan just has to stand aside in the Best Picture category. I stand by the Academy's decision, and I hope that, from what I have said about Shakespeare in Love, those rather misled people who think that Best Director and Best Picture automatically go together will begin to understand why that is not at all true.