The weirdest part about Springsteen not being nominated was that he was one of the people doing the voting.
They were right.
Shakespeare in Love was an intricate tapestry of story making and writing. The incorporation of Shakespeare's plays was brilliantly executed. Turning the plays into a singular narrative with Romeo and Juliet as the skeleton was sublime. The poetry of the work was beautiful and tragic at the same time.
Saving Private Ryan was interesting up until they got on the beach. After that it was predictable pandering.
I liked Saving Private Ryan but it was not in the same league as Shakespeare in Love. The right movie won.
Springsteen not getting a Best Song nomination for The Wrestler. I actually went to another news site to read their list of nominations because I thought the list I read was a mistake.
Not a product of Hollywood?
The Captain - Brilliant leader with the heart of gold desperately trying to hide his fears from his men.
Sarge - Tough and swarthy. Loyal to a fault to his Captain.
The Medic - Willing to sacrifice all to save his brothers and do no harm. Dies with the words, "Momma" on his lips.
The Tough Guy - Stupid but will kick ass. Loves children.
The Jew - Gotta have a Jew.
The Sniper - Southern Boy who loves Jesus and never misses.
The New Guy - Never seen real combat but intelligent and discovers something about himself through the Captain and his book that he's writing. Sees death for the first time.
Not Hollywood roles?
Not really. Shakespeare in Love is in another League.
The first 24 minutes are a high budget remake of the "Longest Day" whose less expensive landing sequence conveyed more tactical believability about the process of securing a beachhead. The next 90 minutes are a mistake-ridden, choppy, and contrived remake of "The Big Red One". Ultimately, this overlong odyssey said less about patrolling behind enemy lines than "Kelly's Heroes"- a counterculture comedy whose serious scenes and character development were superior in almost every way.
Then there is the finale, a total rip-off of Arthur Pohl's "The Bridge" (1949), which focused on a handful of recently conscripted German schoolboys who fight for control of an inconsequential bridge during the last weeks of the war. They were at the bridge because of a series of accidents and they naively stayed there because of their youthful idealism and sense of duty. Like Private Ryan, most do not survive the engagement. What is notable is not that Pohl was able to make a much better film for a fraction of the cost (that is not particularly unusual), but that he was able to convey more perspective four years after the event than Spielberg could manage 50 years later.
I disagree with this completely. I think JFK is good but Silence of the Lambs was really original, especially for the time period. Now there have been plenty of SOTL rip offs but still.
No. I'm saying that the opening scene is in truth one of the more cynically manipulative sequences in recent memory, full of irritating, disorienting jump cuts, pornographically Gibsonesque attention to gory detail, camera tricks and special effects artifices, all accompanied by a deafening soundtrack designed to overwhelm our capacity to think about what is being portrayed on the screen and to push us to simply immerse ourselves in its reductive US vs. Them POV.
And I haven't even touched on the absurdity of the overall plot of the pic. A moral question that is stretched out for three hours. Didn't we cover all this in The Wrath of Khan?
As for the "journey" you keep talking about... well I took that journey with the films mentioned earlier and it was much better.
He should have just waited and made Band of Brothers a trilogy.
![[A]](https://superherohype-data.community.forum/avatars/m/70/70800.jpg?1270390582){kind=avatar}
