Shakespeare in Love (1998) Review

rating: *****

the story: Will Shakespeare’s inspiration for Romeo & Juliet.

the review: One of the most ridiculous common opinions in film criticism is that of course Saving Private Ryan should have beaten Shakespeare in Love at the Oscars. I think this mostly stems from the original backlash against Harvey Weinstein, the since-disgraced producer who helped usher the ‘90s independent film renaissance. 

Saving Private Ryan is a combat-drenched, grinding experience of misery. Its showcase moment is the landing at Normandy on D-Day, and then a parade of stars then and from the immediate future (I always like to remember Vin Diesel’s part as a reminder he’s good for more than muscles and cars), until we reach Ryan himself, Matt Damon, who surprises everyone by not even wanting to be saved. This would work far better if it didn’t take so long to reach him, if we had followed his war experiences in parallel to the unit led by Tom Hanks. Instead it’s just a lot of disjointed war scenes.

Shakespeare in Love is quite different. It’s a deliberately crafted experience that speaks both to the heart of our culture, in exploring a fictional account of the greatest playwright who ever lived, and to social issues, the very role of women in society.

And it’s filled with great acting. Judi Dench won wide acclaim for a relatively brief performance as Queen Elizabeth; Joseph Fiennes, in his one shining moment as someone other than the younger brother of Ralph Fiennes, seizes the opportunity; and Gwyneth Paltrow, who later seems to have gone out of her way to get people to hate her, has a truly effervescent role of a lifetime.

And Ben Affleck, before anyone had even considered to hate him, steals every scene, and Tom Wilkinson, getting to play a bad guy who gets to be a good guy, and Geoffrey Rush being Geoffrey Rush, and Colin Firth actually being insufferable, as I often find the overhyped praise he tends to garner...

It’s a celebration, that rare moment Shakespeare gets to be loved, not merely for his words but as a person. There’s a great running gag involving Christopher Marlowe. In short, the whole movie is a culmination of the last time everyone agreed Shakespeare was worth the time, when Branagh was still in the thick of building a career around him. And remembering that this is a great movie worthy of its praise and laurels might even bring the Bard back, again. 

And they don’t make movies like this every day. That’s the biggest sin of trying to downplay it, that you can have a thousand war dramas (the same year, Malick returned with The Thin Red Line, for instance) but very few efforts to have a romance that isn’t saccharine, that has ambition, speaks about a famous person, and one who himself wrote great romance. The boldness of Dench’s Elizabeth alone is a testament to what’s of real value here.

Live by Night (2016) Review

rating: ****

the story: A Boston gangster is relocated to Tampa and finds unexpected complications in establishing himself.

review: Gangster movies are about as old as Hollywood itself, so well-established that it’s become increasingly difficult for new entries to find any real appreciation. It’s just assumed that everything’s already been seen and done, and if not, The Sopranos was too big a recent phenomenon to worry about what the movies might be doing, too. I think Sopranos spent a little too much time glorifying gangsters, the way Goodfellas did, the exact opposite of how human Donnie Brasco made them, the last time a movie made an impression.

Live by Night opts for an entirely new route. It actually makes gangsters potentially moral authorities.

Yeah. Based on the middle act of a historical trilogy from Dennis Lehane, Hollywood’s favorite author in the first decade of the millennium, Ben Affleck’s adaptation posits an Irish immigrant cleaning up a white supremacist scene by uniting all the undesirables under his empire. He has a black girlfriend (Zoe Saldana), his nemesis is a phony Christian proselytizer (Elle Fanning) and his biggest ally is her police chief father (Chris Cooper). He also wants to replace booze (about to become legal again) with gambling, when no one else sees the wisdom in it.

Like The Godfather, this is a story that doesn’t really dwell on whether or not the basic premise of gangsters is justifiable, but rather whether there is any semblance of honor in what they do. So we follow Affleck around as a hero. His enemies are the viewer’s enemies. His ideas are ideas we can get behind. 

So it’s interesting. Of course, the cast is pretty interesting. Brendan Gleeson’s also in it, Titus Welliver, guys who’re natural fits for this kind of movie. Clark Gregg is there, too, Sienna Miller. Fanning continues to be an inexplicably mature youthful screen presence, in perhaps one of her best roles. Affleck himself never goes out of his way to put the spotlight on himself. If anything, he’s finally found a role that allows him to be the star but also the casual screen presence that saw his best early material (Good Will Hunting, Shakespeare in Love), which often found him in supporting roles.

This is the sort of movie that doesn’t feel like it should be a big deal. But perhaps is for that very reason. It leaves a better impression that way. By not trying to be so impressive, it is. In an era bereft with flashy material, large and small, it’s a welcome digression.