SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE (1998)
A Film Review by Ted Prigge
Copyright 1999 Ted Prigge
Director: John Madden
Writers: Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard
Starring: Joseph Fiennes, Gwyneth Paltrow, Geoffrey Rush, Colin Firth, Ben Affleck, Judi Dench, Tom Wilkinson, Simon Callow, Imelda Staunton, Rupert Everett
It's been awhile since we've had a truly great rethinking of the works of an artist known primarily for uniting and then splitting up a woman named Juliet and a man named Romeo...about three years, if I'm correct (that would point out that I am referring to none other than "Richard III," Richard Loncraine and Ian McKellen's wonderfully naughty adaptation-cum-daring-melodrama). But it's been, oh, three decades at least since we've had the last real retooling of the master's work ("Richard III" more or less played the narrative straight through), and that's not counting the mediocre film version - of course, I'm referring to "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead," the legendary piece of wit from Tom Stoppard that is almost as cheerfully absurdist as, oh, "Waiting for Godot." Apparently he didn't get enough from that play, and needed to show us once again exactly how much he knows about the man and his subsequent work.
That being, "Shakespeare in Love," the egg that has since hatched from his mammoth-sized cranium, as well as that of Marc Norman (who came up with the actual plot), is no "RAGAD," but hey how the hell could it be. It's lighter. More cheerful. More accessible. Only slightly less engaging. Entertaining as all hell. In fact, in a year when even the biggest blockbusters can't lift you off your seat and put a big fat grimace across your face, it's refreshing to see a movie so witty and wonderfully passionate as this, and surprising to find that even if you can't name more than two of his plays ("Romeo and Juliet" and "Hamlet" notwithstanding), you can still find that this love-story-cum-backstage-pass-cum-witty-rethinking-of-the-life-of-a-certa in-playwright-cum-costume-drama-cum-flat-out-comedy to be almost as pleasing as I or anyone else who actually enjoys the Bard does (not that I'm being priggish about it). Because Stoppard, even in "RAGAD," doesn't merely show off his knowledge of the Bard's work, but demonstrates it as well, and forms his plays/scripts so that even if you're not sure of the source material, you can still follow along fine (although it doesn't hurt to know what he's talking about, just to get some more of the jokes).
And he makes sure that the characters it's about are not just recreations from a previous much better play, but actual fresh realizations so the story is not stale and so it's easy to be drawn in. After all, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, presented so briefly in the play, were reintroduced by Stoppard as a variation on the Laurel and Hardy mold, a feuding pair of friends who aren't only likable and sympathetic because their fate is so obvious, but also because they're such great characters. Stoppard does a similar thing with the way he recreates Shakespeare. Thought of mostly as a prissy, maybe even pretentious artist, the way Shakespeare is presented here is a wonderful example of wit: thin, even (as I've been told) devastatingly attractive, and, best of all, a hack, he speaks in a whirlwind of aphorisms and metaphors, just trying to get his emotions out (a friend, after a short speech he's given, says "Enough of that; talk prose."). When we first meet him, he's a local London playwright, estranged from his wife, selling mere ideas to theatre-owners in hopes of advances and money per page he writes, constantly living under the glow of a certain other playwright, the then-more notable Christopher Marlow (Rupert Everett, a wonderful in-joke here, eh?). Under the employment of Philip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush, in full over-the-top mode here, with a funny mustache and a medium-pitched, hilarious speaking voice that screams "rat"), he is currently laboring over this new play, aptly-titled "Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter").
Everything explodes when, during a rehearsal, an actor reads from a play of his (the film finds him after early successes, like "Titus Andronicus," and before his later masterpieces, like, oh, "Hamlet"), and does it with such passion and gusto that he must get his name. But lo and behold, it's actually a woman, one Viola de Lessups (Gwyneth Paltrow), an attractive aristocrat's daughter, bethrothed to a pompous ass of a nobleman (Colin Firth, always on hand to be the asswhole who wrecks a lovely romance, like he was in "The English Patient"). The two meet again, her no longer in disguise, at a dance, and hit it off immeadiately. Once Viola has been cast as Romeo and has revealed her true identity to Shakespeare, the two launch into a series of passionate love scenes, and she quickly becomes his darling muse. As they make love, with the aid of her fellow nurse (Imelda Staunton), his banal play (written to make sure that it has pirates and a dog, as Henslowe points out) turns into the greatest love story of all time, and just as those two were lovers without any hope of a good finale, these two take delight in the fact that their relationship as well is doomed from the get-go, that she will eventually have to reclaim her social position, and he his, but in the meantime, they carry on such a passionate affair that it sparkles all the energy in him to write one of his first great plays, at least the one that will get him better jobs in the future.
But there's more to the film than just making light of Shakespeare's early career and his background for writing such passionate plays: the film is basically your traditional Shakespearean play, or at least a great carbon copy of such. It has true love, villainy, unexpected deaths, vicious twists, character manipulation, bawdy humor, social commentary, inside jokes about the times and even itself, and, the most classic Shakespearean entity: crossdressing, and not just great crossdressing, convincing crossdressing, where people actually buy that the gender is what it seems to be. It even has hilarious connections to the final form of "Romeo and Juliet" (imagine, if you will, a balcony scene culminating in a great fall and a chase by dogs). And it's all done in a witty, hilarious way that may have passed as mid-level Shakespeare, because Stoppard and Norman know exactly what they're doing (and so, I guess, does the other writer, Marc Norman). He knows what's funny, and what is also appealing. He crafts not only great lead characters, but also memorable supporting characters, like that of Hugh Fennyman (Tom Wilkinson), the local moneylender, first seen buring the feet of Henslowe, who owes him money, and later seen cherishing the fact that he has a role in the final production of the play (even if it is as the apothecry). His delight in playing the role is such a sweetly funny thing to behold that it gives the film another layer of joy.
But there's much more. I just basically loved almost everything in this movie. I loved how it knew its subject backwards and forwards and knew how to present it in a witty and entertaining way (it even drolly gives a brief nod to Will Kemp, one of the more famous Elizabethan actors). I loved how the play was constructed and made so that Shakespeare could easily move from a forgettable work to an unforgettable one. I loved all the performances, especially Joseph Fiennes, so forgettable in "Elizabeth," and here so hilariously witty and charming; and even especially Judi Dench, playing an older, more knowledgable Queen Elizabeth, who steals all the three scenes she's in (an aside to Viola's fiance is just fantastic). For the first time, Gwyneth Paltrow measures up to her claim to fame (read: I finally respect her). And I even liked Ben Affleck (playing haughty actor Ned Alleyen, who is told that the play is titled "Mercutio" so that he doesn't fuck up the play).
But most of all, I loved how the center relationship is so full of life and vitality that we don't for one second doubt it's sincerity (a friend of mine did point out that when one is in love, one doesn't feel like doing work - not so: famous composer Leos Janacek was noted as doing the best work of his entire life when conducting a passionate affair, with a woman who happened to be half his age...and if it works for him, it could've worked for Shakespeare). And we feel for them so that even though we know that it's a cursed one from the beginning (like the way we know that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are going to die at the end of either of the plays they're in), we can't help but feel a huge loss when it actually comes around. It's magnificent direction (by John Madden) and beautiful look (which looks genuinely Elizabethan) only help to add to the overall impact of the film, but by the end, this is just another story of a man who appears to be great but is actually as hopeless lost and hopelessly romantic as the rest of us. Like us all, we see the great Shakespeare as a local hack, trying to find the muse that will pull him out of his prison, and when this happens, it's like a beautiful awakening. So is the film. Who else could have possibly made even the lowest artist feel better about themselves by downgrading Shakespeare and not succumb to the wrath of purists everywhere than Tom Stoppard? Just a great man, even if his one attempt at directing was a little weak. Norman too.
MY RATING (out of 4): ***1/2
Homepage at: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Hills/8335/
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews