Another Reason to See Iron Man 2!

Paltrow getting a movie punch in the face is nothing. Hasn’t anyone seen “Seven”?

Paltrow getting a movie punch in the face is nothing. Hasn’t anyone seen “Seven”?

Nice one. Unfortunately my roommate spoiled the “surprise” for me the day before I saw the movie. Although in a way that made the ending even creepier.

Because of her portrayal of Viola in Shakespeare in Love, she can be forgiven all other transgressions. Now, she’s certainly trying to test those limits….

Because of her portrayal of Viola in Shakespeare in Love, she can be forgiven all other transgressions

See, I take the position that her acting in Shakespeare in Love was unforgivable and will forever raise my distaste for her but perhaps that’s b/c I hated that movie so much (in part b/c it stole the Oscar from Saving Private Ryan in one of the bigger “20 years ago they’re going to laugh at how stupid people in the past were” trivia questions)

Michael Denton Says:

See, I take the position that her acting in Shakespeare in Love was unforgivable and will forever raise my distaste for her but perhaps that’s b/c I hated that movie so much (in part b/c it stole the Oscar from Saving Private Ryan in one of the bigger “20 years ago they’re going to laugh at how stupid people in the past were” trivia questions)

I confess I felt the same way the night those Oscars were awarded. But a few months later I was on deployment in Germany and the base theater was playing Shakespeare in Love so I figured I might as well see it. I was bowled over and moved to tears. I watched it 3 more times the week it was there, own it now and watch it frequently. It is masterful the way the writers wove so much of the life, times, and writings of the Bard into that play that I have come to realize that clearly the Academy made the right choice that night. Private Ryan is a good movie, and the opening 30 minutes and closing 25 minutes are beyond top shelf. But the 1 hour and change in between are pretty stock stuff, not even terribly accurate historically, but I still love that movie. But Shakespeare in Love….Paltrow was hardly the best performance in it, but as a whole….food for the dramatic soul.

For historical inaccuracy, you can’t beat Shakespeare in Love referring to tobacco plantations in a Virginia colony that wasn’t even founded until 1607.

I thought about that, Cathy. But there were no tobacco plantations on Roanoke Island. Tobacco wasn’t successfully harvested commercially until 1613, and the first plantation wasn’t established until that same year – 2 decades after the time period in Shakespeare in Love.

Of course, I suppose only Virginians were keeping score on that account. Folks in the Commonwealth are used to Hollywood getting the history of that particular time period wrong

It’s not just distant history, either. As a native of the great Commonwealth, I’m frequently surprised by Hollywood’s inaccuracies. For example, in Remember the Titans, the movie opens with a lady with a thick Southern accent saying “Here in Virginia, football is a way of life…” and most of the scenery suggests a somewhat rural setting. However, the team actually played in Alexandria, VA, just across the river from Washington DC and within sight of the national monuments. High school football is not particularly important there and no one talks with a Southern accent. Additionally, I am told that race relations were much better than they were depicted in the move during that time period(both of my parents went to nearby high schools – my dad played football against that team the next year). None of which, of course, ruins the movie; it’s just interesting how movies conform facts to fit certain narratives (the team played in Virginia, that’s ‘southern,’ ergo people talk in southern accents and high school football is really, really important).

Shakespeare in Love is Romantic Comedy and does not pass itself off as historically accurate, in fact anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the Bard knows the entire movie is a pure flight of fantasy, not unlike the work of the Bard himself, which is one of the greatest ironies of the whole movie.

Private Ryan on the other hand is Historical Fiction, which was trying to portray a fictitious story in an historical setting, and is, in my opinion anyway, more beholden to maintaining historical accuracy on the back ground story, and in that regard they failed pretty horribly.

Both are still great movies though, and both sit on my rack and both frequently get viewed.