Saving Private Ryan? Pants. Thin Red Line? Pants. Shakespeare In Love cannot and should not be compared to these movies for one simple reason - it isn't one of these movies. And why war films should be singled out for distinction when they are themselves rehashed or strangely and continually perceived as being 'powerful' or 'artistic' or 'sensitive' is beyond me. I'm not saying that they are necessarily bad films in themselves, but I think it's time you tried to broaden your horizons a bit. Shakespeare In Love seems certainly to have been received on two levels. Historical relevance and accuracy is not the aim of the film - no more than it was with Braveheart. The latter seems consistently raved-over, and not without some cause - I rank it as one of my favourite films, even though it is essentially a pure flight of fantasy (I love one reviewer's comment - "I look forward to the sequel". Come off it!). SIL contains a continual stream not just of 'in-jokes' but of humour at its cleverest and driest. It is an engaging and almost plausible theory of how the great bard came to write one of the great plays, and how others may have followed. The very fact that it is almost a convincing film singles it out as an achievement in inventive, entertaining script writing. The fact that it has been so well received on this side of the pond precludes the theory of its Englishness appealing to the Academians; it is simply an engaging love story whose humour suits the background knowledge and style of humour found here. Sorry guys - but if I wanted a decent war movie, I'd take Where Eagles Dare; if I wanted a trip into the surreal I'd settle for Jacob's Ladder; if I wanted a poignant, historically accurate, and powerful war movie I'd take Schindler's List. And if I wanted a clever, witty and original twist on two old themes, I'd take Shakespeare In Love. It deserved to win recognition, and failure to observe this precludes criticism of all but the most basic films to be found on the silver screen.
