1998: The Year that the Academy was Fixated on Corsets and The Third Reich

Yeah I was going to come up with some clever way of tying together several plotlines like I have been doing, but the movies in this year all seem to be surrounding the same two subjects: Victorian England and World War II. They're also all really freaking good movies. It's probably the best year of nominees that I've seen so far. In fact, I probably shouldn't be telling you this, but this entry probably won't be as entertaining as usual since I liked everything. Who am I kidding? It's me! Of course it'll be awesome.

First up is a movie I thought might be well-done but boring, and turned out to be one I plan on purchasing. It's the period piece Elizabeth, and I knew it would be good as soon as I noticed that the writer is the guy that writes every episode of The Tudors. As the film begins it feels like a lot of the biopics I've recently watched on my escapade: well-acted, authentic looking, and not particularly exciting. But once it got going, I was hooked. First off, Cate Blanchett just has this really raw attractive quality to her. She is both beautiful and powerful, as I had already seen in LOTR (where she was legitimately scary a few times). On that note, Queen Mary (Elizabeth's sister and predecessor) is way hotter on the TV show than she is in the movie...but that's my only complaint. The film has an epic, awesome score (which I also want to buy) and I've never heard of the director but they did a really good job. The supporting cast is also excellent, and includes Geoffrey Rush, Richard Attenborough, and Joseph Fiennes (Voldemort's nicer brother). When the assassination attempts start rolling in, the film turns into the female version of The Godfather. Sweet. And the film caps it all off by having a quasi-superheroic final scene wherein she suits up (1500s style) and undergoes a transformation to become The Virgin Queen. Which would be a terrible superhero name, but as compared to all of those "The Greats" and "The Terribles" it's pretty cool. All of this is enhanced by the playing of Mozart's "Requiem" which is probably my favorite classical piece of all time, as it has also figured prominently on Smallville and in Watchmen. So overall, the movie is well-done and awesome, especially since I wasn't expecting much going in.

The next movie made me cry like three times. And the tears didn't just well up, they overflowed. It was pretty crazy, but it's a powerful and uplifting film: Life is Beautiful. And it's odd to mention how uplifting it is because a good chunk of the movie takes place in a concentration camp. But that just shows you that fiction can make you feel anything for literally any situation. Plus, a lot of the movie covers the main character's life before the concentration camp as well. The combination of the writing, the music, and the performance from Roberto Benigni (who also co-wrote and directed the movie) makes the film magical. That's the only word for it, it just makes you feel happy when you watch it. Because the main character goes from being poor to being a verifiable slave, but he finds ways to make it all seem positive and even funny. While a prisoner of the Nazis, he made it his top priority to hide what was really going on from his son by convincing him that they were all in an extended game of sorts, and whoever won got to keep a tank. The idea that a father loved his son to the extent that he created an elaborate narrative to make a horrible situation bearable and even enjoyable is a powerful idea. And learn this well hippies: it's possible to convey love and peace within a film in a non-blatant and actually effective way. So I give major credit to Mr. Benigni, who basically made the whole movie himself when you think about it. And every aspect of the film is well-done, and approaches a tired topic in an uplifting and original way. So for this reason, not only do I applaud the Academy for giving the film a nomination, I highly recommend anyone and everyone to watch it.

Something I certainly can't recommend to everybody is Saving Private Ryan. Not because it's bad, it's outstanding, but because it's incredibly graphic (even by my standards). The movie presents some problems though: it's actually so good that it's ruined World War II movies forever. It doesn't spend time raising philosophical issues like the next movie in this blog does, nor does it have a story that is particularly interesting. In fact, I remember someone being on Who Wants to be a Millionaire talking about how he told his studio to pass on the script and felt like a moron. But I can understand that, it's almost three hours long and here's the plot: the last son of an otherwise dead family is lost in enemy territory and we have to get him back. Pretty straightforward. But the delivery is absolutely incredible. So incredible, in fact, that literally every other war movie about any other war is compared to it. This should be avoided, because the comparison would rule in this film's favor every time. The spectacle of the battles is astounding. They are intensely realistic while still retaining a cinematic quality. They are frighteningly violent and yet sometimes almost have a beauty to them: like moving paintings. There are some solid performances in there from Tom Hanks, Tom Sizemore, and a young Jeremy Davies. And then of course there's Private Ryan himself: Matt Damon (there's also a great cameo of sorts from Ted Danson). The film is a perfect example of a movie with a simple plot that still achieves excellent character development, story progression, and visuals. It also features a great musical score from the always incredible John Williams, who has been nominated over 40 times (and even that isn't enough I say). So if you like war movies, especially World War II movies, and you haven't seen this then shame on you. It's pretty much as good as it gets within its genre.

Which is part of why I didn't enjoy this next movie as I might have under other circumstances: The Thin Red Line. Let me just say right now: it's an incredibly well-done film with a thought-provoking and well-written script and features some great performances from a lot of big name actors. But for the past few weeks, I've had to watch a lot of World War II movies (as I'm sure you've noticed). I've also been watching The Pacific every week (excellent show) and before it started up I re-watched Band of Brothers to prepare. So I'm seriously kind of WWII-ed out. I feel like I've been in the Pacific for months now. So I'm watching this movie, and I'm thinking, "what's that you say, script-writer? War is bad? Humanity is evil? Yeah thanks for letting me know, I'm aware." So I think I'll give it another watch someday when I'm not so heavily involved in other films of its type. Because objectively, I was watching it and recognizing everything that was good about it. But it did nothing for me emotionally, and I think that's just because after a while it all looks the same (thankfully, I saw SPR years ago and several times since, and can thus offer a more accurate opinion on my thoughts). Same weapons, same environment, overall same message. Something that this film does a little bit differently is it kind of has a battle scene and then a tone poem format. So there's fighting, then contemplating, repeat as needed. This loses its effect after a while, but not until near the end of the movie. Which is saying something as it's about 3 hours long, and this is after the director apparently cut out another 2 hours which contained entire performances from other big-name actors. And on that note: I actually have an issue with "cameos" in movies of this type. Because you're totally in this movie, and a major character dies, and then right before the end: George Clooney shows up for a briefing. And instead of having the movie soak in, you go: "it's George Clooney!" There was a similar instance earlier in the film with John Travolta, who I just can't take too seriously anywhere. The only time I've seen this technique done well was in Apocalypse Now where Harrison Ford shows up at the beginning and essentially lures you into a false sense of security. I'd say more about that, but you'll instead have to wait for my 1979 write-up, which I'm sure will be coming your way sometime in the next decade.

This year's winner is kind of an arthouse film, but not in bad way. It's a wonderfully-written movie with an almost perfect cast: Shakespeare in Love. And I know: it sounds like a Hallmark adaptation of a Danielle Steele novel. Which is why I gave my mom the crazy eyebrows when she made me watch it. But I figured, "Gwyneth Paltrow is in it so it won't be too painful." Well as happens far too often, I was completely enveloped in this movie as soon as it began. Though the title refers to the Bard himself, the movie is more about his lover than anyone else. And as I said, the casting is almost perfect. Shakespeare is played by Voldemort's nicer brother...wait a minute. Joseph Fiennes is in this one too? So that means that in 1998 he was paid cash money to make out with Cate Blanchett and then make out with Gwyneth Paltrow? I'm clearly in the wrong line of work. This will be my final blog. Forget writing, the place to be is in front of the camera. But since my pasty white skin would likely blind audiences I guess I'd have to venture outdoors to achieve this goal, so forget it. Anyway, if I can remember the point I was making it's that the cast is almost perfect. I forget how long it takes for the movie to be almost ruined, but I think it's about an hour or so. Because from the beginning you're completely involved in this world to the extent that you forget you're watching a movie. Until freaking Ben Affleck comes along. As soon as you hear his voice, you're pretty much punched in the face with the fact that he doesn't belong in Victorian England (or in front of the camera at all really). The only time that Boston jerk did a great job was when he played a Boston jerk in a 1997 movie I'll talk about next time. This whole situation is reminiscent of Spartacus, wherein Tony Curtis (an otherwise good actor) ruins the illusion of Ancient Rome by having an accent that sounds more like he's calling a cab than helping to lead an uprising. Ben Affleck was dating Gwyneth at the time apparently. So put him in the background! Don't let him speak! People shouldn't have been surprised when she named her kid Apple, this clearly establishes her as a crazy person. But she does an outstanding job and deserves every bit of that Oscar. The reason I rant so much isn't just that BA annoys me, it's that I really don't want to say much about the movie. And why? Because the way in which it is done is so brilliant and powerful that it wouldn't be as good if I told you. So go watch it! Just trust me on this one, I trusted my mom on this one and it paid off. I'd say don't tell her that I said so, but she's pretty much half of my fanbase so the sentiment would be futile.

Well that's it for 1998: a year that was a bit monotonous with its overall themes but certainly had a lot of quality. Don't worry, 1997 will be crazy and all over the place again. It will include full frontal male nudity that thankfully remains implied, Jack Nicholson throwing adorable dogs down garbage chutes, and the supervillain origin story of my mortal enemy: James Cameron.