Oscar Politics: Elizabeth vs. Shakespeare in Love vs. Emma
http://feelthefilms.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/oscar-politics-elizabeth- vs-shakespeare-in-love-vs-emma/
The Best Actress winner of 1998 has been a topic, even over a decade later, is still on movie buff’s discussion list. Shakespeare in Love is a divisive Best Picture winner beating out Saving Private Ryan, but what’s even more divisive and more vicious of an argument is some film fans opinion that Cate Blanchett was robbed of her first Oscar with her performance as Queen Elizabeth, losing to Gwyneth Paltrow, playing the fictitious Viola in Shakespeare in Love. Some movie fans have even gone as far and become so desperate to say “If they wanted to reward Paltrow for leading a period piece, they should’ve given Frances McDormand’s Oscar for Fargo to Paltrow for Emma.”
It troubles me to think that someone would say that about McDormand’s more than worthy performance and playing into the new cliche that Oscars are all about politics. Whether we agree with the Academy’s choice or not, we shouldn’t fall back on the excuse “it was just the politics.” We, as an audience and filmgoers, must accept the fact that an actor was picked by the Academy for their performance, not the politics, even though we may have differing opinions on who deserved the gold more. I’m guilty of doing it myself, after watching the fantastic All About Eve, I was outraged that Bette Davis didn’t win Best Actress for her legendary performance. I assumed it was because she split votes with her co-star also in the lead actress race, Anne Baxter. But, there’s no proof that they split votes, I was bitter that the Academy thought Judy Holliday gave the best performance that year for Born Yesterday.
As I looked at and thought about these three films, Shakespeare in Love, Emma, and Elizabeth, I thought this would be a great way to analyze my opinion of them and the outcome of the Oscar race. I know that people who are in strong favor of Cate will use the fact that I’m a huge Paltrow fan against me, claiming I’m biased, but with this situation, nothing could be further from the truth. Going into Elizabeth, I actually thought I’d come out with an overwhelming admiration for Blanchett’s work. Now, leaving my bias behind, here we go….
Elizabeth surprised me, to be quite honest, because I never thought that a period piece would be made into a frightening thriller, but that it was. Elizabeth‘s first act of the film, opens with a darkness you would expect to see in a Silence of the Lambs type of film. It’s shot with beautifully somber cinematography, a terrifying religious-themed film score, colossal costumes, and using palatial sets, Elizabeth could mistake you for a Shakespeare adaptation of Macbeth or Hamlet.
Cate Blanchett is really great in the role, as she’s hyped up to be, supplying the film with Elizabeth’s raw-emotion and cold persona. Geoffrey Rush is outstanding as the dark character, Walsingham, and Joseph Fiennes makes another memorable character of this era in the same year as the release of Shakespeare in Love. The film, though it delivers an excellent first act and a nice concluding third, the middle section of the lags behind because Elizabeth steps out of the thriller-type genre it was going for in the first 40 minutes and topics the expected marriage controversy with Elizabeth.
Sometimes film gets lost in its own reputation, but it still towers as period piece. Rating: 8/10; Grade: A-
I can’t find any more ways to say the word cute while taking notes during the film, because that’s Emma in a nutshell. It’s a petite, innocent, and simplistic movie that is sure to keep you involved in the story. It features some wonderful dialogue in Jane Austen’s novel. It’s a nicely composed film, even if the music is not utilized at time as it should be. Gwyneth Paltrow’s performance shines like the champagne she drinks in the film, in a breakout role any actress would die for. Paltrow is ever-so-charming as the title character, and puts forth the effort to make this a memorable film and role.
Emma is the type of film you’ll love watching, it’s even appropriate for children, the problem with it is that the fluff is light enough to carry the film into the family genre. There’s no depth or artist storytelling, behind the film’s green glass, clear water, long candlesticks, opulent furniture, exquisite flowers and classy decor. It does play off some classic fables, but never stomps on any new ground. It’s just an amusing time.
Emma is a delightful film, that’s cute and fluffy with some fantastic visuals and a sparkling leading performance from Gwyneth Paltrow. Rating: 7/10; Grade: B+
Shakespeare in Love is a film that you can see and feel the brilliance at the very start of the picture and it enchants you to a state of delight. The screenplay is the picture. It’s an ideal screenplay that is unexpected to be so enthralling and clever. The film celebrates Shakespeare’s life, explores his greatest writing achievements, most obviously being Romeo & Juliet, but other iconic pieces get a few homages. Fiction life imitates art so wonderfully, you could fool a naive man with a claim this was a fact-by-fact biography. Any theater/English influenced person could easily wish this story the way it all actually happened. It uses real-life fact to build the fiction, and it’s still a hilarious, romantic movie to watch.
Mirroring Romeo & Juliet for most of the film, Shakespeare in Love gets to explore ironies of social issues at the time and the “truth and nature of love”. This film sets an example to non-artists, an artist’s inspiration for their work. One of the easiest routes for producing wonderful writing, music, or paintings is love. Shakespeare in Love is one of the few romantic films that actually is completely successful in capturing love. Some say, you must go back to Shakespeare’s original works to acquire great acting or truth in theater or entertainment, and Shakespeare in Love does successfully allow the lead couple act out Romeo & Juliet, but it also sets a precedent that all you need is good writing making romance and narrative just as tantalizing as the classics. A good deal of fun can be had by the audience watching Shakespeare in Love, it’s also contains moments of hilarious comedy. But Shakespeare, Romeo & Juliet, and this movie prove Judi Dench’s character, Queen Elizabeth, wrong on love, who claim that true love can never be captured in the theater.
Joseph Fiennes and Gwyneth Paltrow dazzle in the depth of their strong characters and passionate romance. Paltrow has such powerful charm and lovability behind Viola and Fiennes creates a great depiction of the most popular scribe in history. Judi Dench’s cameo is a wonderful addition. The costumes are a degree above other period piece’s clothing design, enriched in creativity and elegance. The sets and cinematography are beautiful, the editing breaks down the wall of the viewer’s imagination, and its underlined with a romantically epic musical score. The director, John Madden, makes all the risky components of a film with so many intricacies into a sweeping masterpiece, that’s hard to sit through without smiling and even harder to leave with tears. Rating: 10/10; Grade: A+.
As motion pictures, comparably speaking, there’s no question of the most superior film of the trio here. I enjoyed Elizabeth‘s dark style and Emma‘s winning charisma, but Shakespeare in Love is layered deep mixing the greatest forces of love with the most beloved storyteller’s life. Not only deserving of the Best Picture statue that year (Elizabeth was rightfully nominated alongside Shakespeare in ’98), but it doesn’t deserve the massive outcry of disappointment that the Academy didn’t chose the bigger budget, more politically important, Saving Private Ryan. The Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences is filled with compelling artists who have most likely been inspired by Shakespeare at some time in their career. Shakespeare in Love obviously spoke to them more than Saving Private Ryan did. It’s similar of asking the Academy to pick Lincoln over Argo this past year. At least Shakespeare is a movie that celebrates William Shakespeare and makes all his old work appealing to society today.
On the acting side, I enjoyed Paltorw’s performance immensely in Emma. I thought she was adorable and sweet. Would I have nominated her in 1996 for Best Actress? She would’ve definitely been in consideration for the top 5, after Frances McDormand got the #1 slot for Fargo. It’s a worthy performance, but for people to shrug off as a consolation prize for Paltrow, wishing Blanchett would’ve won win is a ridiculous request that underlines the political misconceptions of the Oscar season. 1996 films should be judged against other 1996, not used as hush money for 1998 films.
As for the two opposing acting jobs at hand, I must say I enjoyed Paltrow more than Blanchett, by a long shot. Blanchett is one I’ve never warmed up to, though I recognize her fabulous work in The Aviator and her gripping performance in Notes on a Scandal. I actually really loved her in Elizabeth. She made Elizabeth as cold as she needed to be, and emotionally raw as Elizabeth probably became at that time. Now Paltrow’s Viola is the polar opposite, where her work is driven by charm, enchantment, and how much the audience falls in love with her as Shakespeare does. Every line delivery by Paltrow has a nuance, with a thought out plan about the character behind it. Paltrow goes the extra mile, where Blanchett’s work only goes a little over the required mile. And what it comes down to Paltrow warmed my heart more than Blanchett froze it. Roger Ebert once said, “You have to judge movies for what they intend do, not what you want them to do.” In my opinion, people are more likely to crown a dramatic performance rather than one in a comedy with a few dramatic scenes.
The three movies are interesting and worth the experience and the performances, two by Paltrow, and Blanchett are worthy of the praise they get. Instead of creating animosity with these two performances, rejoice that such strong female characters were written and supporting the quality, female driven films that are so rarely seen today.
When it comes to torture, I trust the lady who spent three years married to James Cameron.