For a couple of years following Titanic‘s release, Oscar nominees and winners fell a bit flat. In 1998, James Cameron’s decorated cinematic darling dominated the box office, its earnings more than doubling those of its nearest competition (which ended up being the disaster flick Armageddon, a movie whose catchy-though-often-overplayed theme song by Aerosmith has endured the test of time, while the film has not). But that’s not to say that there weren’t some quality movies made at the end of the 1990s. The funny thing is that this week’s film, Shakespeare in Love (1998; Miramax Films, Universal Pictures, Bedford Falls Company Production) is not one of them. It even feels a bit ludicrous and slightly painful to list this film as a Best Picture winner, especially when one considers the quality of the other films that vied for the Academy’s highest prize for 1998.

At the 1999 Academy Awards ceremony, the five Best Picture nominees only presented stories from two distinct historical time periods (which is so odd and will likely never happen again). Two films were set in the Elizabethan Era: Shakespeare in Love and Elizabeth, and three films were set during World War II: Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, and Life is Beautiful. Each of these five films boasted no less than 7 nominations (7 each for Elizabeth, The Thin Red Line, and Life is Beautiful; 11 for Saving Private Ryan; and 13 for Shakespeare in Love), but the general consensus prior to the awards show was that Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan, a film whose bloody and disturbing opening scene of the Allied invasion of Normandy is one of the most realistic war sequences ever created for cinema, was the best film of the year and the one to beat in the Best Picture race. In fact, Shakespeare in Love‘s upset of Saving Private Ryan has landed the romantic comedy on critics’ lists of worst movies to ever win Best Picture.

Still, Shakespeare in Love was considered an artsy and forward-thinking choice for BP winner in 1998, and many celebrated its achievements (albeit briefly–especially in light of the recent accusations against one of its producers, Harvey Weinstein). The film won 7 Oscars for its 13 nominations: Art Direction, Costume Design, Music (Original Musical or Comedy Score), Writing (Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen), Actress in a Supporting Role for Dame Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth (Fun fact: Dench and Cate Blanchett [of Elizabeth] were both nominated for playing Queen Elizabeth in 1998.), Actress in a Leading Role for Gwyneth Paltrow as Viola De Lesseps, and Best Picture. It failed to win Film Editing, Makeup, Cinematography, Sound, Actor in a Supporting Role for Geoffrey Rush as Philip Henslowe, and Directing for John Madden.

So why in the world do we get so much about World War II and Shakespeare at the end of the 1990s? A couple of weeks ago when we looked at The English Patient, we noted how the 1990s marked the 50-year anniversary of the end of World War II, and how that milestone generated renewed interest in the war–cinematically and otherwise. But there are other reasons for the film industry’s obsession with WWII, a fixation that only intensified after September 11. The Guardian‘s Andrew Pulver observed that people seem to have realized in the late 1990s and into the 2000s that the Greatest Generation who fought the war are aging and rapidly leaving us. Soon, there will be no one left who actually witnessed the events of the world’s greatest war, so there is an added urgency to tell their stories now. Also, the scale of World War II adds to its popularity among filmmakers. Writes Pulver, “The war itself, a gigantic conflict that played itself out in a myriad of theatres across the globe, that traumatised entire societies and triggered seismic political, technological and ethical upheavals, has almost endless potential for storytelling: there are little-known military exploits to recount, reassessments to be made, newly significant relationships to be detailed.” Author/screenwriter/actor Frank Cottrell Boyce chimes in, “The war has become a metaphor, not just history…We’re attracted to it because of its moral certainties.” World War II towers over history as a landmark conflict between forces of good and forces of evil, and both movie-makers and movie-goers cannot get enough of such a primal and relatable clash.

As for Shakespeare, his work has been popular since the sixteenth century, and the decade of the 1990s proved no exception to the Bard’s universal acclaim–in fact, in 1997, Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre, a recreation of Shakespeare’s theater from 1599, opened in London and has remained a major attraction ever since. Not too many people will argue against the claim that Shakespeare was the greatest writer to ever live. No surprise, then, that so many of his works have found their way into film in some form or another. Shakespeare in Love spins a fictional tale about Shakespeare himself: how he has a bad case of writer’s block, how he falls in love with a woman who pretends to be a man in order to act in his new play, and how their love inspires Romeo and Juliet. It’s an interesting idea for a story; and maybe Shakespeare himself, the master of bawdy comedy, humorous disguises, and tragic love affairs, would have been amused by it. Personally, I find it a little bit cheesy and quite a bit raunchy. The colorful 1990s, however, whose obvious influence can be seen in the film’s costumes and set decor, had a brief fling with Shakespeare in Love; and so we will too.

For more thoughts on Shakespeare in Love and its significance, please check out this weekend’s post!