"...'tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide [in appeal] as a church-door; but 'tis enough, 'twill serve"

"Shakespeare in Love"
Overall Rating: ***


Shakespeare with writers' block? Shakespeare with money problems? Shakespeare trying to sell someone on a new idea? It almost certainly happened--it happens to all writers. Did it happen as depicted in "Shakespeare in Love?" Almost certainly not, but as a work of historical fiction, "Shakespeare in Love" is not bad.

The movie tells the fictionalized story of Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes). Shakespeare is the stereotype of a contemporary neurotic writer. Far away from his wife, he carries on with other women shamelessly--though lately his extramarital romantic episodes lack zing. This frustration leads to a terrible writers' block, which is exacerbated by a cash problem--or more aptly a lack-of-cash problem. That financial dilemma is shared by the owner of the Rose theater--who desperately awaits the forthcoming Shakespearean comedy "Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter." As fate would have it, Shakespeare will find his muse in Viola de Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow); an aspiring actress in an era that won't permit it, Viola is a wealthy and devoted theater fan--who is also pledged in marriage to Lord Wessex (Colin Firth).

The movie is intriguing. Anne Hathaway is mentioned, so from the start, you know Shakespeare and Viola's romance is doomed, no matter what else happens. With the theme of doomed love, it beautifully echoes the story of "Romeo and Juliet"--which is the play Shakespeare is writing throughout the film.

Though the film is enjoyable on the whole, most everything is a mixed bag. Most of the actors are good. Gwyneth Paltrow and Colin Firth are good. A number of the less central roles shine. Judi Dench is regal as Queen Elizabeth. Imelda Staunton is wonderful as Viola's nurse. Probably best of all is Ben Affleck, who plays Ned Alleyn--the egocentric actor playing Mercutio; he is so full of himself that it is perfectly credible that he takes the part because he believes the play will be called "Mercutio."

On the downside, as much as the movie feeds on the period, there are some distracting anachronisms intended to be funny--unless William Shakespeare really did wear one earring and go to a psychoanalyst. Though the script is partly to blame, Joseph Fiennes plays Shakespeare as a beat poet--the poet part works, but the beat part doesn't. The movie leans on the Elizabethan period in many ways, but also tries to modernize Elizabethan England a la "The Flintstones;" the result is occasionally jarring. The story also fails with a couple of the subplots that fall flat.

"Shakespeare in Love" is not for children. It is a work of fiction, so it has little or no real educational value, and with its heavy emphasis on romance it will probably bore most children. It also has nudity (several scenes show Gwyneth Paltrow topless), fairly graphic sexual content, and some moderate violence (some of it is the stage violence in "Romeo and Juliet;" but there is one scene where a boy feeds a live mouse to a cat, and there is a scene where someone is tortured for having bad debts).

On balance, "Shakespeare in Love" is enjoyable. It's a clever movie. Shakespearean purists will probably hate it for the inaccuracies (though what seems the most obvious mistake, "the Rose Theater" may not be--the Globe Theater wasn't built until 1599). As the bard himself might have said (but probably wouldn't have):

"some far better movies may play here,
but decent is this one about Shakespeare."


Title: "Shakespeare in Love"
Release date: December 25, 1998

MPAA rating: R
Overall rating: ***

Aprox. run time: 123 min.
Director: John Madden
Screenplay: Marc Norman, Tom Stoppard
Stars: Joseph Fiennes, Gwyneth Paltrow, Ben Affleck, Colin Firth

Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/S_Love.htm
Added to blog site: 8/4/09