Who's the Winner--Love
or War?
by J. Robert Parks
One of my favorite childhood activities was helping my dad run the annual NFL playoffs office pool. For some reason, figuring out all of the permutations and probabilities appealed to the game player in me. Unfortunately, my fascination with office pools has never translated into any kind of success with them. When the office I worked at ran a pool for the Academy Awards last year (not for money, of course), I finished solidly in the middle of the pack. All that to say, the following picks are neither a suggestion for how to beat your fellow employees nor an endorsement of your local Oscar game (illegal as they are), but rather a self-indulgent description of who I think should win and why. For those looking for recommendations of what to see, I offer these wholeheartedly; for those hoping to win a little money, you're on your own.
Of the five candidates for Best Film, three are supremely qualified while two have snuck in as evidence of the Academy's lesser tendencies. Let's first dispense with the two who are merely along for the publicity. Life is Beautiful has achieved an enormous amount of success in the last year. Winner of the Grand Prize at Cannes, along with numerous awards at other festivals, this self-described fable has "touched the hearts of audiences everywhere." Set during World War II, the story is about a man (played by director and writer Roberto Benigni) and his young son who are sent to a concentration camp. There, the father does his best to convince his son that this is all part of a game-that if the son just remains hidden, he'll win a real tank at the end. The movie is unabashedly sentimental and often funny and, for that, has provoked strong reaction on both sides of the spectrum. Many people, including those who've given it all the awards, are genuinely moved by the sentiment, while others find it preposterous and even offensive that one could be so blasé about the Holocaust. I find myself in the middle. As big a fan as I am of slapstick, I was surprised that I didn't enjoy that aspect of the film more. But I was moved by the relationship of the father and son, and found it touching. Yes, it's outlandish, but Benigni undercuts that by reminding us that it's a fable. Even with all that, though, I was bored at times and certainly wouldn't consider it one of the ten best films I saw last year, much less the best. At least it's not Elizabeth. A biopic about the Virgin Queen (and the mother of modern England, if you believe the movie), Elizabeth incorporates all of the best and worst aspects of a costume drama. The sets and costumes are truly spectacular, particularly a scene on the river that must have been a devil to shoot. But on the minus side of the ledger, the story is dull and often predictable, and the conflict is so baldly presented I found myself routinely giggling at serious moments. I knew the film was heading the wrong way when the opening scene of Queen Mary (dressed in the blackest of blacks) was followed by the beautiful Elizabeth and her ladies-in-waiting dancing on a hillside in a rainbow of color. A little subtlety would've gone a long way. And speaking of giggling, it's strange for a movie that revolves around a strong female character to have such backward gender politics. Every man in this movie is serious and thoughtful; every woman, including the title character, is flippant, distracted and, yes, prone to giggling. The only exception is a French fop who's come to woo Elizabeth but spends most of his time dressed in women's clothes. In the end, though, the worst sin of the movie is that it's dull. We all know Elizabeth is going to outwit her opponents and that England will become the empire on which the sun never sets, so how much suspense can there be. Unfortunately, the filmmakers never answer that question. On the other hand, if you're like my mom and watch the Oscars just to see what people are wearing, do I have a movie for you.
That brings us to the three main contenders, all of which rank highly on my list of favorite movies from the last year. Let's start with the favorite, Saving Private Ryan. Despite the carping of numerous high-brow critics, this is a fabulous movie full of spectacular moments and bravura filmmaking. Unless you've been boycotting all media for the last nine months (and I wouldn't blame you), you already know that the film is about a squad of American soldiers in World War II who have been ordered to find the title character and bring him home safely. It's a senseless assignment, and the movie, to its credit, doesn't gloss over the stupidity or difficulty. Tom Hanks is the leader of the squad and the glue that holds it together. To be honest, though, eight months later I don't remember that much of the middle of this movie. What still stick in my head are the two battle sequences that open and close the film. Unstinting in their portrayal of war and a triumph of filmmaking, particularly in the use ofsound to convey information and feeling, they both highlight the horror of war but also honor those who fought. That's a tough line to follow (and one some think shouldn't be followed), but Spielberg pulls it off with power and majesty.
As if two World War II movies weren't enough, The Thin Red Line takes place on the landscape of Guadalcanal, as a battalion of U.S. soldiers tries to take a hill from the Japanese. Unlike Private Ryan, Terence Malik's movie is much less concerned with the exterior mechanics of war than the interior struggles of individual soldiers. So while there are brief battle sequences, the film spends much more time on flashbacks, interior monologues and long periods of waiting as the camera pans over the beautiful tropical environment. I know many who found this approach pretentious, but I thought it was profound and supremely intelligent. The movie requires a lot of patience and an ability to focus more on the interior moments of mood than the exterior points of story, but it's an endeavor well worth exploring.
As much as I like Saving Private Ryan and Thin Red Line, and would be happy if either won the Oscar for Best Film, my pick goes to the enchanting, funny and very, very smart Shakespeare in Love. Joseph Fiennes playsShakespeare as a struggling playwright who's been hired to write a comedy called Ethel and the Pirate King. The title chosen, the rest should be a snap, or so thinks theater manager Geoffrey Rush (in yet another wonderful performance). But Shakespeare has a bad case of writer's block, at least until he meets the noblelady Gwenyth Paltrow. They fall in love, but the evil class differences of England along with a perfectly dreadful suitor stand in their way. What will happen? Well, according to the fabulously inventive screenplay by Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard, Romeo and Juliet is what happens. And how it gets from Ethel to Juliet is one of the most creative and wonderful transformations I've seen in movies. Friends of mine like Garth have argued that, while Shakespeare in Love might be great fun, it's not a great film. But I disagree. Yes it's not dealing with the large issues of war or tragedy, but I can't remember a film that was so in love with art and the artistic process, that was so committed to love and its foibles, and that was so much fun. Yes, it's fun! And what's wrong with that? What's wrong with saying that I haven't smiled so much at a movie in ages, that Gwenyth Paltrow gives a spectacularly radiant and engaging performance, that Judi Dench is a giant as Queen Elizabeth, and that the movie is perfectly paced, casted and acted? Why not salute a movie like that? I do, and I'm proud to say it's my pick for the Oscar for Best Film.