Oscar History: Marty vs Rose Tattoo, The Piano vs Schindler's, Shakespeare vs Private Ryan
Sunday, March 21, 2021 at 8:24AM 5 random things that happened on this day, March 21st, in Oscar history only:
1941 The Sea Wolf starring Edward G Robinson and Ida Lupino is released. Director Michael Curtiz is warming up for his rather incredible peak decade (Yankee Doodle Dandy, Casablanca, Mildred Pierce are next) but this one only snags one Oscar nomination for Best Visual Effects
1956 The 28th annual Academy Awards are held honoring the films of 1955...
Marty becomes both the shortest film to ever win Best Picture and the first indie to do so. Anna Magnani wins Best Actress for Tennesee Williams' The Rose Tattoo. What would you have voted for that year?
- Love is a Many-Splendored Thing
- Marty
- Mister Roberts
- Picnic
- The Rose Tattoo
I dont have strong feelings about this lineup. Do you?
1967 Wacky musical comedy Thoroughly Modern Millieis released. The 20s spoof was another big hit for Julie Andrews, queen of the 1960s. Oscar voters also loved it nominating it for a pretty impressive 7 Oscars (it won Best Original Score). We've written piece on two of its key nominations: Daniel's piece on its Production Design and Cláudio's piece on Carol Channing's one of a kind Supporting Actress honor.
The 1993 quartet
1994 The 66th annual Academy Awards are held honoring the films of 1993... a very good film year. Schindler's List (7 wins) takes Best Picture and The Piano (3 wins), and Jurassic Park (3 wins) were the other big winners that night.
The 1998 quartet
1999 The 71st Academy Awards are held with Shakespeare in Love (7 wins) and Saving Private Ryan (5 wins) fighting it out all night for best of 1998 honors. Harrison Ford finally announced that Shakespeare has prevailed. People still like to bitch about this (another reminder that comedy and female-focused films are rarely properly respected) but Shakespeare in Love is a wonderful movie.
Today's Birthdays, Oscars Only Edition
Happy 49th to Kirsten Anderson-Lopez who won Best Original Song twice, composing with her husband Robert Lopez for Frozen's "Let it Go" and Coco's "Remember Me". They lost their third nomination though for "Into the Unknown" from Frozen II. We interviewed them for that one!
Jaye Davidson, then and now...
Happy 53rd birthday to model turned actor turned fashion stylist Jaye Davidson who provided his own spoiler for The Crying Game (1992) when he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for playing the transgender Dil in the Best Picture nominated noir. He cashed out of Hollywood after a million dollar paycheck for Stargate (1994). He's never made a movie since.
Happy 63rd birthday to Gary Oldman, nominated for Best Actor for a third time this year for Mank.
Happy 77th to Parisian Best Supporting Actress nominee Marie-Christine Barrault of Cousin Cousine (1975) fame. Other famous films include My Night at Mauds, Stardust Memories, and Swann in Love
On this day 91 years ago comic actor James Coco was born. He's the only man to ever be nominated for both a Razzie and an Oscar for the same role. It was for the dramedy Only When I Laugh (1981) with Marsha Mason in which he played her Gay Best Friend (calling Christopher's fine series!)
On this day 115 years ago Screenwriter Helen Deutsch was born. She was Oscar nominated for writing Lili (1953) but other classics include Unsinkable Molly Brown (1964), King Solomon's Mines (1950), and The Glass Slipper (1955). Her last screenplay was Valley of the Dolls (1967)
On this day 117 years ago Cinematographer Edward Cronjager was born. He was nominated for 7 Oscars but never won. His best known fimls were Cimarron (1931) and Heaven Can Wait (1943).
On this day 128 years ago Oscar nominated director Sidney Franklin was born. He started in silent films and though his career didn't extend much beyond the 1930s he directed a handful of women to Oscar nominations including Luise Rainer (The Good Earth), Lynn Fontanne (The Guardsman), Norma Shearer (Barrets of Wimpole Street) and Merle Obron (The Dark Angel).
On this day 132 years ago Director W.S. Van Dyke was born. He directed the Norma Shearer costume drama Marie Antoinette (1938), and the smash hit franchise launcher Tarzan the Ape Man (1932) among many others but he's surely best known today for directing the boozy comedy mystery The Thin Man (1934) for which he received one of his two Best Director Oscar nomination. The other was for the Clark Gable picture San Francisco (1936)
On this day 154 years ago theatrical impresario Florenz Ziegfeld Jr was born. He was a titanically influential figure on early 20th century entertainment and musical theater via the revolutionary Show Boat. He became the subject of the Oscar winning biopic The Great Ziegfeld (1936) as well as a key character in the Oscar winning star-is-born musical Funny Girl (1968). He was also married to an Oscar nominee, Billie Burke (who we recently discussed on the Smackdown).
Reader Comments (45)
Agreed about Shakespeare in Love. It deserved that Oscar for Best Picture.
Can someone explain Oscar nomination for Marie-Christine Barrault for me? She got zero other nominations for her role, could not even get a Cesar nod.
1993 (only nominees)
1. The Piano
2. Schindler's List
3. In the Name of the Father
4. The Remains of the Day
5. The Fugitive
My nominees would have been
Groundhog Day
The Piano (winner)
Schindler's List
Three Colors: Blue
The Wedding Banquet
1998
1. Life is Beautiful
2. The Thin Red Line
3. Shakespeare in Love
4. Elizabeth
5. Saving Private Ryan (I would burn that film)
My nominees
Gods and Monsters
Life is Beautiful
El Milagro de P. Tinto (winner)
The Thin Red Line
The Truman Show
(almost there: Babe: Pig in the City)
Add another cheer from me for SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE. It is a pure delight, and I'd watch it any day over SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (which is very good, especially in parts, but a slog in others). I get so tired of bros bitching online over that particular Oscar call as one of the worst ever. Not even close, and I'm a Spielberg fan.
There were some real classics released in 1955 too, so that Best Picture lineup seems especially weak in retrospect.
All That Heaven Allows
Bad Day at Black Rock
East of Eden
Guys and Dolls
The Night of the Hunter
Rebel Without a Cause
Summertime
Pick any 5 of those 7, and you’ve got a far stronger Best Picture lineup than the one they came up with.
It’s an interesting little game to see if you can pull a stronger BP line-up just from the pool of nominees from the other categories. I think ‘55 is a year where you definitely can:
Bad Day at Black Rock
East of Eden
That Man With the Golden Arm
Rebel Without a Cause
Summertime
All IMO superior to every film actually nominated for the top gong. You should totally try it with other years - great way to get the brain ticking and pass the hours when you can’t sleep :-)
Anna Magnani's terrific in 1955's "The Rose Tattoo". But I'd have given the Actress trophy to Susan Hayward for "I'll Cry Tomorrow". She really upped her game in that film. Engaging in some impressive dramatic duets with Jo Van Fleet (who played her mother). Years after Hayward finally won the Oscar (for 1958's "I Want to Live", she still cited "I'll Cry Tomorrow" as her best and favorite work. And generously gave Van Fleet credit for helping and inspiring her.
I'd have handed Magnani an Oscar several years earlier for "Bellissima", an Italian film from '51 where she played a loudly obstreperous (what else?) stage mother. And did it with her trademark brilliance.
"The Night of the Hunter" would've been my hands-down Best Picture winner for '55, with Lillian Gish snagging a richly deserved Best Supporting Actress trophy.
Can't comment on 1993, because I've seen only 2 nominees. So:
1998:
1. The Thin Red Line
2. Saving Private Ryan (Yes, its even more masculine than The Thin Red Line, you can absolutely blame most "only technically colour" movies/video games on its large influence and, even as someone who doesn't hate the movie, Tom Hanks' nomination here was bizarre. His performance is mostly "constantly horrified reaction shots, The Movie", and though he's good at it, no way there aren't 5 better performances...not nominated for Best Actor.
3. Shakespeare in Love (It's not a BAD winner, but I also hesitate to say it's a great one either. Agree it's nothing worth whining about. UNLIKE...)
4. Elizabeth (Cate Blanchett in full "newbie syndrome" mode. If a male actor was at this level as a historically comparable royal, that movie wouldn't even TOUCH Best Picture.)
5. Life is Beautiful (Why Benigni even thought he was the right guy to make this was beyond me while watching it. This is a movie where the character's LAST NAME exposes just...slapdash incompetence. Orefice? ORIFICE! The character's last name pretty much means hole. But the movie is this nobly tinged vanity project instead of an INTENSELY dark comedy where the main character lives down to the implication of that last name?)
Once again another example of an opportunity to honor Edward G. Robinson and Ida Lupino gone to waste. Both are nomination worthy in The Sea Wolf (as is Alexander Knox). John Garfield is also very good in the film but his role doesn't have as much meat on it as the others do.
My answer to the 1955 question is none of the above. All the movies except Love is a Many Splendored Thing, which is crap, are decent films but hardly the best of the year.
My list would be in this order:
East of Eden-Winner
Night of the Hunter
Diabolique
All That Heaven Allows
Bad Day at Black Rock
I thought that picture of Helen Deutsch was the great character actress Lee Patrick.
First of all, look at that photo again.
Okay, second of all, Cousin Cousine was a huge hit in the US, the most successful French film in a decade, nominated for three Oscars. It made Barrault and Marie-France Pisier (who got the César nod and won) international stars and sex symbols.
Third of all, she’s great in it.
@ Nathaniel: She was nominated for Best Actress, not Supporting.
Of the line up i'd go Marty but overall for the year Night of the Hunter.
The 93 winners I think have aged well whereas 98's have not.
"Can't comment on 1993, because I've seen only 2 nominees."
For someone who can get vehement in opinions of others and a bit douchey, this is surprising. Book a weekend of great cinema and knock out that egregious blindspot Volvs.
I think the '98 Oscars upset folks for two primary reasons. #1. Saving Private Ryan was the biggest movie of the year. Of course there was going to plenty of upset folks when it didn't win. What amazes me is how people seem to want to re-write a bit of history and pretend that not only was it a huge audience and financial success, but it was also the most critically acclaimed movie of the year. In a year before everyone and their mama was giving out awards, it won NYC, LA, and was runner-up for the NSFC. Throw DGA, PGA, a host of other guilds and a GG on top of all that, yeah, folks were/still are upset. Especially because...
#2. Of course Shakespeare In Love is fine, but the win felt like a victory for a successful Miramax marketing campaign instead of one based on its own virtues. I think this started to turn the tide for how people began to think about Miramax. You just knew to make room for one of their nominees, whether it deserved to be there or not. The push was more important than the film or its quality. Nominations for The Cider House Rules and Chocolat just seemed to highlight that approach.
I’m so glad Shakespeare In Love won Best Picture. It’s one of my favorite films and everything about the movie works for me. I have no hatred towards Saving Private Ryan which is a movie I appreciate, but I don’t love it.
The Truman Show is better than most of that 1998 lineup and should’ve been there for the win. Shame that Jim Carrey gave three Oscar-worthy performances over the next six years (this, Man on Moon, Eternal Sunshine) but he’ll probably never get that glory.
We never get tired of relitigating '98 here, do we? ;-)
1955 is a great year, and "Marty" is a pretty good winner, but if I had to choose, it would be "Rebel Without a Cause" without a doubt. Followed by Sirk's masterpiece "All That Heaven Allows", then "The Night of the Hunter".
Also "Shakespeare in Love" >>>>> "Saving Private Ryan".
Shame that Jim Carrey also chose to make Dumb and Dumber, Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls, and Batman Forever in the time preceding The Truman Show. You don’t win Oscars making years of crap for the almighty buck and then having a good director or two create you a decent performance in the editing room.
Yes, I still like to bitch that Shakespeare in Love won Best Picture and that Saving Private Ryan did not. Saving Private Ryan should have won, but I realize that I'm hopelessly outnumbered on this blog.
On the other hand, I think that it's very unfair that if someone wanted Saving Private Ryan to win, then they are against female-led movies or comedies. I wanted Saving Private Ryan to win because it was the film that moved me most that year and the one 1998 movie that I return to most often. It wasn't because I wanted a guy movie to win and wanted a girl movie to lose. Hell, the year before I thought The Ice Storm was the year's best movie and it is filled with strong female performances.
Should the Academy honor female-led movies and comedies? Yes. But if they choose another type of movie, does it mean that they are against female-led movies and comedies? No.
As a follow-up, I find it... odd... that the SIL/SPR connection keeps coming up again and again on this blog to illustrate this"the Academy doesn't like female-led movies and comedies".
Perhaps Gladiator / Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon should be used instead? Surely there are other instances that can be used to illustrate this point instead of using the same one over and over again?
@Ken: The SIL/SPR comparison isn't about what the Academy likes (they gave it to SIL, after all), it's about how people in general react. Indeed, your counterexample proves that point, as while a lot of people don't think Gladiator should have won, it doesn't attract anywhere near the same viciousness as SIL did and still does in some quarters.
I'll stick up for Marty as a solid '55 nominee. There are definitely many other films that would have been better selections in that Best Pic slate, but it's surprising that neither Rebel nor Summertime cracked the list, given their major accompanying nods. i just saw Summertime for the first time for the Hepburn performance, but didn't realize it was also one of David Lean's director nominations.
@James
"You don't win Oscars making years of crap for the almighty buck and then having a good director or two create you a decent performance in the editing room."
Sandra Bullock and Matthew McConaughey have entered the room. LOL
1955 seems kind of odd - lots of good films that year (including both of the ones starring James Dean), but not a terribly exciting slate of nominees. From the list of nominees Marty makes a lot of sense as the winner, although for actressexual reasons Picnic would've been fun.
Count me in for every single Oscar Shakespeare In Love won. In fact, it should have had at least one other nomination, Best Actor for the overlooked Joseph Fiennes, certainly better than Benigni.
My 1998 nominees would have been
In order
Norton
McKellan
Nolte
Fiennes
Hanks
Paltrow
Blanchett
Sheedy
Streep
Montenegro
Thornton
Coburn
Furlong
Frazer
Damon
Dench
Clarkson
Redgrave
Kudrow
Allen
And what a bad bunch of nominees in 1955, considering the masterpieces overlooked!
1) Night of the Hunter
2) East of Eden
3) Diabolique
4) Bad Day at Black Rock
5) Summertime
6) Rebel Without a Cause
The nominees for 55 do nothing for me. Regarding 98, people still compare every war movie to Ryan, while I never hear anyone comparing a movie to Shakespeare. One is at the top of its genre and the other is above average of its.
A couple of yeara ago, to celebrate the 20th Anniversary of its win, I re-watched Shakespeare in Love and wrote a review of it on my Facebook page. I wanted to share it here:
"So, I recently re-watched Shakespeare in Love (just shy of the 20th Anniversary of its Best Picture win), one of the most infamous Best Picture winners in my lifetime. It's a film known for mainly two things: for beating Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture (even though Steven Spielberg did win Best Director for that film), and for being the film that gave that serial abuser known as Harvey Weinstein an Oscar (he lead several successful Best Picture campaigns, but this is the only film for which he won an Oscar himself as a credited producer). The latter is a very heavy burden for any film to bear in these modern times (it was even back then, given that he always had a reputation for being grotesque), especially when the film in question is a frothy romantic comedy set in the Elizabethan era involving a heavily fictionalized version of the world of William Shakespeare (let me stress this once more, this film is Heavily Fictionalized). It’s one of those films that the Academy is often chastised for handing it the Best Picture prize because the film is not “special” or “important” enough. It’s a film that is what it is: a romantic comedy dressed up in lavish costumes and sets that create a more romantic version of Elizabethan England, employing a somewhat more modern sensibility (by 1998 standards, of course), anachronistic modes of speech and enough references to Elizabethan theater to enchant all those viewers who are familiar with that era (though not pervasive enough to alienate those who aren’t). Taken on those terms, I love it. No, I would not have awarded it Best Picture that year (to be fair, I also think Saving Private Ryan is somewhat overrated, my pony that year was The Truman Show, which wasn’t even nominated for Best Picture ultimately) and I know the film is pandering to my love of Shakespeare, but when the results are this joyous and entertaining, I say pander away.
First off, I should say outright that the film is built upon a huge historical inaccuracy (not the existence of Viola de Lesseps, that’s pretty much a given), which is that Shakespeare came up with the story of Romeo and Juliet. He merely adapted an Italian tale that had already been translated into English by Arthur Brooke, but put his own spin on it by making it into, in the words of author Harley Granville-Barker, “a tragedy of youth as youth sees it” (disclaimer: I am not in the least anti-Stratfordian and therefore will not entertain any theories that Shakespeare’s work was not written by William Shakespeare). Having taken that liberty, screenwriters Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard (himself a brilliant playwright who had already dabbled in Shakespeare with his play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead) craft a story in which William Shakespeare suffers through a severe case of Writer’s Block which can only be cured by finding his muse, whom he finds in the daughter of a wealthy merchant who disguises herself as a boy to audition for Shakespeare’s next play and gets the part, before Shakespeare finds out that this boy is the woman he’s smitten with and begins an affair with her. Much of the comedy comes in how many of their interactions become scenes in Romeo and Juliet (including a version of the balcony scene), but also from a brilliantly chosen cast of supporting characters who give us context on the different rivalries among the playhouses (mainly the Curtain belonging to Richard Burbage and the Rose belonging to Phillip Henslowe, and several references to the works and life of Christopher Marlowe (the film even entertains an anti-Statfordian theory that Shakespeare got some of his stories from Marlowe).
What makes this film is the writing and the cast. The weak link in the latter is Joseph Fiennes as Shakespeare, who has always felt like someone taking on the daunting task of playing Shakespeare, giving it too much weight for the tone of the film (with a few exceptions where he does lighten up), and never quite reaching the youthful exuberance portrayed by Gwyneth Paltrow as Viola de Lesseps. Their scenes together often drag, but Paltrow manages to carry the romantic portions with her radiant energy. The supporting cast is outstanding all around, with Geoffrey Rush chewing the scenery with a delightful turn as Phillip Henslowe, Colin Firth at his pompous best, Ben Affleck abandoning all pretense of respectability and being all the better for it, Tom Wilkinson, Simon Callow, Jim Carter, Imelda Staunton, Mark Williams, Rupert Everett, each getting at least one standout moment, and of course, with only 8 minutes of screen time and playing what is essentially a deus ex machina (something that is often considered lazy writing, but in this case the tone supports it), Dame Judi Dench steals the show. The score by Stephen Warbeck is at its whimsical and bombastic best and David Gamble’s editing creates a few of my favorite sequences (which includes a love-making sequence intercut with a rehearsal of Romeo and Juliet, which I find more joyful now that I recognize nearly every word of that play).
Having said all of this, yes, we still must deal with the incredibly awkward fact that the film would probably not exist without Harvey Weinstein. I’m going to include a link to an excellent Youtube video that examines that Oscar season, though I still think the film is worth checking out and seen as a film (of course, I understand if most people can’t, what Harvey Weinstein was able to get away with for so long is horrible and should never happen again). Check out this video and I hope you'll want to check out the film:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tihITlPAn4"
1. You go, James Coco!
2. Because of the forthcoming Cobb, the 1993 Oscar quartet looks more like a student, parent, and teacher meeting in the mean principal's office.
3. As for the 1998 Oscar quartet, Gwyneth Paltrow has made it her duty to protect Judi Dench from the flailing Roberto Benigni.
Anyone who says Shakespeare in Love is a better movie than The Thin Red Line.
This is what I am going to do all of you jabronis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLgz8YsO9LI
And don't you call this fake you fucking bitches. These 2 women just created a masterpiece in the art of professional wrestling. They deserve to have a lot more attention right now as this was a historic match.
The 1955 field is the weakest fild ever. I would have voted for Mister Roberts and it's my least favorite film ever of all my choices.
I love Picnic</>b, but part of that is from seeing the Academy Award statuette for Horton Foote at my alma mater. Marty</> is wonderful too.
Saw The Crying Game with a group of friends, and I was the only one who knew the secret. Great fun watching their expressions upon the reveal.
@Brevity - re 2) - you win Comment of the Day for sure!
Silver medal to Yikes.
1998/99 is one of the the worst Oscars ever, in my honest opinion.
I don't like most of the outcome; Life is Beautiful is so problematic in many ways (ugh), I think Shakespeare is *totally* forgettable, couldn't care less for that film (I do prefer Elizabeth) - and I strongly believe that Saving Private Ryan is the better movie (but still, not as good as Band of Brothers) between the two... But far from being the best movie of the year.
They snubbed Peter Weir's The Truman Show from best pic and best actor (come on), The Thin Red Line is the best movie between the 5 nominees; Thomas Vinterberg's "Festen" should've been nominated for foreign language film and should've won.
The Oscar will never be about the real BEST picture, we know that, we've known that for ages. There are many people voting, too much opinions and too much campaign. It's a democracy (a weird one) hahahaha. So for me, it's all about choosing the representatives for the year past. In that sense, when I think of 1998, I'll always go to "Saving Private Ryan" first, and it still an unbelievable picture. If it were made these days it would still blow people away (very John Ford-like).
I often wondered the career Jaye Davidson would have had he continued making movies. I thought he was amazing in The Crying Game -- actually the whole film itself: screenplay, Anne Dudley's score, Miranda Richardson, Stephen Rea, Jim Broadbent, editing. I wish Jaye'll come back someday for another role or two.
For 1998, my favorite films were The Thin Red Line and Central do Brasil. But I don't dislike the other films FWIW. Lisa Kudrow deserved a nomination at least.
RS, that was a horribly long comment - you should have kept it on FB.
It's very Volvagia back in the day writing paragraph on paragraph about video game tangents.
I'm also in the Shakespeare in Love camp. . I often wonder if Saving Private Ryan would have won had Spielberg trusted his audience (his fatal flaw is that he does not usually) and not tacked on the hit-you-over-the-head-cemetary bookends. The movie was excellent but for these clunky mistakes.
Volvagia: OREFICE does not mean "hole" in Italian. It means "goldsmith." Many Italian jews have last names that indicate a profession (like "goldsmith") or the name of the town where their ancestors resided. I think many people forget that Roberto Benigni's performance was highly lauded, and not just by the Academy. He won the SAG award, the European Film Award, the BAFTA and, less surprisingly, the equivalent of the Italian Oscar (David di Donatello award). The backlash against the film and the performance began afterwards. Perhaps in part due to Benigni's characteristically over-the-top exuberance when he accepted the Oscar, but also -- possibly -- because he follow-up projects were widely panned. But this form of backlash is not uncommon in American culture: after someone is elevated, there is a desire to pull him down. It is also worth remembering that LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL received more than a few endorsements from Jewish intellectuals, like Nobel author Imre Kertesz, as well as a warm reception in Israel. Writing the film off now seems a bit facile in light of how it was experienced at the time. This article contains a bit more context on its reception by those most affected: https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1998-07-26-1998207191-story.html.
How could Jerry Lewis' The Day the Clown Cried be more tasteless and insensitive than Life Is Beautiful?
@ davide
Not true. I recall quite clearly hating the film and the performance when I saw it in February '99, and I was not alone in being very vocal about it. I was mortified and confused by the positive reception.
@workingstiff
Apologies for not articulating my thought more clearly. I was not implying that LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL was unanimously embraced and showered with praise when it first screened. Of course there were people who disliked it from the get-go. But generally speaking the film was popular, as reflected by ticket sales (it broke existing box office records for a foreign film) as well as by awards (it was nominated for and won many awards from a variety of organizations). The real backlash against the film, and the one that has resulted in many people discounting the actor just as much as the movie he created, began after it was crowned at the Oscars. Whatever one may think of the production, Benigni's acting deserves a reappraisal. His is a rare talent and he is a classic, poetic clown. An enlightening prediction of what was in store for this artist was sounds was outlined in this article by a prescient critic: http://old.post-gazette.com/columnists/19990319tony.asp.
@ davide
And yet...
Of the five nominees that year, I would rank the performances
1. Norton
2. McKellen
3. Nolte
4. Hanks
5. Benigni
but I would actually replace Hanks and Benigni with Carrey and Paxton.
My 2 cents:
Best Actor 1998: 1) Hanks 2) McKellan 3) Nolte 4) Norton 793) Benigni
Because it was too early for a 3rd Oscar for Hanks, I'd've instead voted for McKellan
Instead of Benigni, Michael Caine should have been nominated for Little Voice
Besides voting for the best actress or actor, I would revere the author of one of the most popular pieces and works again. I admire Shakespeare and especially the play "Romeo and Juliet" so much. I bet that if stage directors made a new play of it, it would take the Oscar no matter what movies would compete. https://paperap.com/free-papers/romeo-and-juliet/ is the source where I read about the romance and its hurried and rash characters' decisions. I had to write about one of William's creations, and the service's free papers offered the most reliable and clear information. Shortly after my writing assignment, I became more inspired and thoughtful about Shakespeare's activity.