And you thoughtGreen Bookwas a surprise.
This year’s Best Picture winner should hold Shakespeare’s ale, because in 1999 an artsy piece of erudite fan fiction about the Bard’s young career took down none other thanSteven Spielberghimself.
Here’s the dirty little secret: it should have.Shakespeare in Loveis a better film thanSaving Private Ryan.
Considering how that’s a minority opinion (which I’ll defend in a bit), many people believe thatShakespeareproducer and Miramax honchoHarvey Weinsteinessentially bought the 1998 Academy Award for Best Picture. With a rumored $15 million, the notorious-now-disgraced mogul-bully staged an unprecedented Oscar race blitz. This, no doubt, was crucial and perhaps even necessary to slay an Oscar-lock goliath likeSaving Private Ryan, butShakespearedidn’t win because Weinstein was some Hollywood Svengali whose spellbinding powers of deep-pocketed marketing persuasion somehow hypnotized weak-minded Academy members to vote against their wishes.
When initial December premieres and Academy screenings forShakespearewere met with unexpected raves of exultant bliss, Weinstein realized he had a legitimate contender. His job, then,wasn’tto convince Oscar voters thatShakespearewas better thanRyan. Instead, it was to assure them that it was okay to vote forShakespeare– the film they actually loved – and that doing so wouldn’t make them bad, unpatriotic Americans.
But how did he do that?
Most contend it was through a dirty trick. Various accounts, from books to oral histories, attribute it to the birth of the “whisper campaign,” where a slander is strategically spread through gossipy buzz along the awards circuit, or in off-the-record press convos. For Harvey, the whisper campaign was this: once you get past the stunning D-Day opener, there wasn’t much there toSaving Private Ryan.
The fact that he did this is indisputable, but the idea that Harvey invented that opinion isn’t.
Weinstein did not concoct that view out of whole cloth. The ambivalence aboutSaving Private Ryanpost-Normandy was already in the air. It wasn’t a new thought; it’s one that people had – hell,Ihad it – if mostly in secret. Harvey didn’t need to plant the idea; he simply seized on it. People may have perceived it as a smear, and tactically perhaps it was, but aside from the caveat thatRyan’s climactic battle is the near-equal of the Normandy sequence, the whisper also had the benefit of being the truth.
For many Academy voters, Weinstein was confirming (and thus validating) what many of them likely felt but were too afraid to say (whether out of reverence forRyan, its legendary director, or a newfound appreciation for The Greatest Generation). By contrast,Shakespeare In Loveboasted a conceptual brilliance and literate sophistication that, with its superb ensemble and skillful direction, soared with a highbrow-yet-accessible follow-through. Academy members lovedandrespectedShakespearefrom start to finish becauseit isa better filmfrom start to finish.
As a result, on August 10, 2025, despiteSaving Private Ryanbeing so pre-ordained that the Academy tapped Spielberg’s iconic collaboratorHarrison Fordto present Best Picture,Shakespeare In Love’s surprise victory elicited the biggest gasp this side of theMoonlight/La La Landdebacle.
But that was then. Now, twenty years removed from that awards season noise, a revisit (my first in over at least a decade) of the 7-time Academy Award winner confirmed what I always believed:
Shakespeare In Loveis downright rapturous.
It’s smart, witty, and as substantial as the legend it fictionalizes, with a fervent love story to match. The right director won the Oscar, if only for the landmark Normandy invasion alone (including the kinetic drop-frame approach that remains the standard for a combat aesthetic), but the reasonShakespeare In Loveis better is because of the screenplay, which is superior toRobert Rodat’s forRyan– and by a considerable margin.
WhereRyangets bogged down in war theory debates, pat philosophizing, strained personal anecdotes, banal platitudes, and burdened self-import,Shakespeare In Loveis a nimble, absorbing farce in the mold of Shakespeare – with veiled identities, comedy of manners, and a lyrical star-crossed romance – that matures and expands into a variation of his tragedies, especially as events become influences for the play that he’s writing,Romeo & Juliet. This isn’t some cheapy, easy riff of Elizabethan pop culture references. DirectorJohn Madden’s deft guidance credibly evokes a love, a passion, that could inspire a masterpiece.
It’s certainly different (and I’d wager better) than what the first, failed incarnation might have rendered.Edward Zwick(The Last Samurai) was attached to direct in the early 1990s withJulia Robertsin the lead, but when she couldn’t convinceDaniel Day-Lewisto play Shakespeare alongside her (I’m going to hazard a guess that he balked at her lack of British-ness and Zwick’s lack of nuance) she bailed, too, roughly six weeks before shooting was to begin. Zwick kept the project as producer until he was finally able to resurrect it with Miramax.
PlaywrightTom Stoppardwas a perfect match for the material, given his celebrated tragicomic twist on two of Hamlet’s side characters in the Tony award winning playRosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. He brings that same voice to bear here, overhauling an initial draft byMarc Norman, and elevating it far above parody to an homage that aspires to Shakespeare.
Dialogue is extremely clever and literate, but wisely avoids iambic pentameter (which could’ve been obnoxious). This is a send-up of theatre as well, displaying a comic cynicism that all performers (including, not doubt, Oscar voters) can identify with, but then also taps into what makes the art form so powerful.
Liberated and free, the ensemble is never stifled by the form, especially Shakespeare surrogateJoseph Fiennes– who you completely buy as an author of great sonnets – and Academy Award winning Best ActressGwyneth Paltrowas the luminous muse Viola. She pulls from a deep emotional well and range that will stun those who only know her from GOOP or as Pepper Potts.
Though classically styled, their performances aren’t stiff. William and Viola’s desire to rip each other’s clothes off is always present, an undercurrent of every moment, in every gasp and look, both so overwhelmed and possessed by love that you can feel their hearts about to burst out of their chests – yet theirs is not a carnal craving. What distinguishes their seething, palpable ardor from most other screen romances is this: not one instance – not even the coital moment of truth – feels driven by lust. Even in their lack of chastity there is a purity. The two have genuinely become one. And at the height of Shakespeare’s artistic triumph, all that matters to him is her, and to her him. Their love feels so big, so all-consuming, that the soul’s very existence seems at stake. This may not be the true story of howRomeo & Julietcame to be, but damn if it doesn’t feel like it.
It’s all buoyed by a deep bench of talent, including Academy Award winners (Geoffrey Rushin the jester archetype andJudi Denchin her Oscar-winning role), Brits as they were emerging here in America (Colin Firth,Tom Wilkinson), futurePotterplayers (Imelda Staunton,Mark Williams),Downton Abbey’s Mr. Carson (Jim Carter), plusRupert Everettat his late 90s peak of poignantly-wise supporting roles. Oh, andBen Affleck, whose acting is good despite his accent.
The whole endeavor was boldly ambitious, with high degrees of difficulty, but it succeeded. Indeed,Shakespeare In Loveis better thanSaving Private Ryanfor the very reason that was “whispered” about. Having debates about which films deserved Best Picture or not should lead to interesting, generous discussions between film lovers, not snark-driven smackdowns in toxic comment threads that spiral to the lowest levels of our common humanity. We can have (and express) polar-opposite opinions without being polarizing. Hell, we can actually have fun while doing it.
