For me, the most damaging Oscar upset, the one that made me realize the award has zero credibility, was TItanic's win over L.A. Confidential in 1997. I still can't get through Titanic, with its dated CGI and awful Celine Dion soundtrack. While L.A. Confidential has a few lines of clunky dialogue--"You me and Patchett, we're a team"--it's still a great and compelling film.

I remember in '98 the upset when Shakespeare in Love won Best Film. There were three kinds of voices in that argument: old people and women, who were happy, young guys who were pissed Private Ryan didn't win, and cineastes who thought the Thin Red Line should've taken it.

I never liked Private Ryan. It's one of the most manipulative and phony films, even for Hollywood. I'll admit the opening forty minutes of butchery are terrific to watch, and Hanks and Sizemore were good, but the awful framing device, the cameos, the horrendous acting by some of the bit players, and the disingenuousness of Spielberg's directing--his desperate wrenching of emotions from the viewer, while it sometimes effective, has the subtlety and lasting charm of watching a puppy being tortured. Think of all the letters being written to the dead soldiers, the old guy asking his wife if he lived a good life, etc. William Goldman has a terrific article on the film in his essay collection Who Killed Hollywood? where he dismantles the awful screenplay by Robert Rodat, which includes a man flashing back to events he didn't witness.

So almost by default, the movie I wanted to win was Terence Malick's Thin Red Line. It has more cameos but they fell less intrusive, the acting is a bit more solid, and John Cusack's charge up the hill was more exhilarating, I felt, than the famous opening to Private Ryan.

It was playing last night at the Vancity, and after revisiting it, I've decided that in this case the Oscars got it right. Shakespeare in Love is a much better film than either Private Ryan or Thin Red Line. The acting is better, the emotions it hits are more complex, and it's much less pompous. It wasn't trying to be an Important Film That Says Something Timeless About War. It was a comedy and a love story that didn't rely on cliche, and to pull that off is a feat that neither Spielberg not Malick could match.

But that's not the reason I'd give the statue to Shakespeare in Love. It's the only one of the three that bothered to tell a decent story. Joesph Fiennes's isn't the most nuanced portrayal of Shakespeare, but he comes off as fully realized in a way not one person in either Big War film did.

Look, I'm not an expert on Film. I just know Story, and for me, neither Malick nor Spielberg bothered telling one. Strip away the amazing cinematography and the harrowing visual effects and you have two very empty movies.

I'm trying to think what else was nominated that year. Life is Beautiful, which looked just as emotionally exploitative as Ryan's Privates, and Elizabeth, which nobody saw. Affliction and American History X, Out of Sight, Pleasantville, Gods and Monsters, A Civil Action, A Simple Plan, Primary Colors and The Truman Show all didn't get nominated--not that they should've, but they all told interesting stories, and some of them have held up pretty well.