by Chris A. Bolton

Shakespeare has become the patron of the self-congratulatory elite, and the bane of the common people. Mention the man's name in a high-school classroom and listen to the chorus of groans and protests. This is a crime beyond comprehension. Shakespeare wasn't writing to the aristocracy; he wrote to the people, to the groundlings, the commoners, the huddled masses. They were the ones to whom he spoke, and in Shakespeare's day they listened. That he has become inaccessible to the common people would no doubt outrage Shakespeare today.

Among its many virtues, Shakespeare In Love is a film that understands what Shakespeare himself was after. It is smart without being mercurial, funny without being idiotic or insulting, and passionate without being schmaltzy. It walks the fine line between entertainment and enlightenment that Shakespeare loved to tread - and which has been all but foresaken by today's society, which demands bigger bang for the buck and whose mantra (I'm told) is, "Entertainment, not education."

Ah, but if more people saw Shakespeare the way Shakespeare In Love presents him, they would perhaps understand his work better and learn to appreciate it.

(For that matter, if they saw Shakespeare the way it was meant to be seen - performed live, by skilled, passionate actors in lusty, engaging productions - they might find it much more interesting than the stale text-book presentations crammed down their throats in public schools and even college. Shakespeare, for all his brilliance as a poet and wordsmith, was a playwright, and he wanted his work to be seen and breathed, not studied.)

In the film, 29-year-old Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes, who will never again be referred to as "Ralph's brother" after this film) has been hired by the struggling Rose Theatre to finish his new play, a comedy called "Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter." When Shakespeare runs into his colleague, the more successful Christopher "Kit" Marlowe (Rupert Everett) in a bar, Marlowe asks him what the play is about. Shakespeare takes a drink and replies, "Well, there's this pirate..."

The problem is, Shakespeare hasn't got a play; he's got writer's block. He needs a muse, and he's not finding it among the booze and bawdy wenches of London. But the show must go on, especially when some gangsters threaten Philip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush), the Rose's beleaguered owner. So auditions begin. They aren't promising. The same Marlowe monologue is recited by every single actor, to Shakespeare's dismay - until the final audition, when a young man reverently recites Shakespeare's poetry back to the playwright.

The "young man" is Viola (Gwyneth Paltrow), a young lady of society who is betrothed to the loutish Lord Wessex (Colin Firth). But her heart seeks a poet, and Shakespeare is her true desire. She disguises herself as a boy to get into the play, and eventually wins the part of Romeo. She also becomes Shakespeare's muse and helps him complete the play.

More than this I will not say, for just as in Shakespeare's works the unraveling of the convultions of the plot is part of what makes Shakespeare In Love so much fun. It is brilliantly acted, especially by Fiennes and Paltrow. Fiennes invests Shakespeare with a vibrancy, youth, and energy that seems unlikely in a portrayal of The Great Playwright; this is not an academic exercise, but a flesh-and-blood human being we're seeing... who just happens to be a great (blocked) writer. Every scene with Fiennes is a pleasure, and his every expression and mannerism are terrific and spot-on.

Paltrow is radiant. She hasn't been this exciting to watch onscreen in years. When Viola reads Shakespeare's poetry, we believe she is overcome with passion and desire. The love scenes between these two are among the most erotic and lifelike I've seen on film in a very long time.

Director John Madden (Mrs. Brown) keeps things moving at an even clip, juggling several subplots and shifting tones expertly from high comedy to heart-breaking drama. The screenplay by Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard is clever in its double entendres and references to other Shakespearean works, and brilliant in its energy and intelligence.

The theatrical goings-on are every bit as compelling as the central love story. The booming London theater scene is presented in all its highs and lows, with wonderfully intricate details filling up the background. We see the first-ever performance of the soon-to-be-renamed "Romeo and Juliet" as it is created from scratch, by a band of players with little more than a bare stage, great egos, and an unflagging dedication. Theater is seriously in decline in America, mostly having been replaced by film, which can never equal the live theater. Film is simply too expensive, too reliant on the bottom line, to achieve the same art form. A group of inspired young artists would go very far into debt to make their own film, whereas the same group can throw together a play with only a minimal expense - and pray for an audience.

What Shakespeare In Love understands that most other films do not, is that entertainment and enlightenment (if not education) are not mutually exclusive. One can see a comedy, have a great time, and take something away from it. I imagine this film will likely change a great many young opinions on Shakespeare, and hopefully cast a new light on the Bard's oft-maligned library.

At any rate, it is a terrific film, smart and funny and romantic, and the sort of entertainment that enables the elite to stretch their arms patting themselves on the back while the groundlings roar with laughter and weep with understanding. It is exactly the sort of film Shakespeare himself might have made, were he alive today.