Conrado de Quiros, Philippines

I'm glad "Shakespeare in Love" romped off with a lot of awards in the Oscars. It deserved so. I haven't enjoyed a movie more thoroughly in a long time. "Shakespeare in Love" is not a movie you devour like hamburger, it's one you savor like pink salmon. Quite incidentally, I saw quite a number of youths at the movie house where the movie was playing. Since it's vacation time, I presume they saw it out of volition rather than coercicion. But I wouldn't blame teachers - of literature in particular - for most strenuously urging their studenst to watch it.

At the very least it should improve their appreciation of "Romeo and Juliet". I know it did mine. The premise is not unlike that of "Life is Beautiful", "Shakespeare in Love" also superimposing a comedy on a tragedy, or wringing out one from the other. The result, a collision and collusion of worlds, of gaiety and sadness, of murder and laughter, of death and love. Pretty much like life.

Indeed, the result being to give back to "Romeo and Juliet" the enthusiasm and fire and romance that have been taken away from it by its elevation into a "classic" or, worse, a tragic story. "Romeo and Juliet" isn't meant to bathe in dark and somber hues, notwithstanding that the star-crossed lovers kill themselves in the end. It is meant to bask in the sun, or the glow of moonlight. It is a celebration of young love, which is really the only love there is, with the boundless joy and affirmation of life.

If you're trying your hand at creative writing, or any creative work for that matter, "Shakespeare in Love" should also give you glimpses of the creative process. Where does Shakespeare get his idea for "Romeo and Juliet"? >From everything around him of course. From the two feuding playhouses, the

Rose and the Curtain, which become the two warring houses of the Montagues and Capulets. From the miserable status of artists of that time (remember Mozart?) and the boundless privileges of nobles, which become the monumental divide between Romeo and Juliet. Where does he get his literary tips? From Marlowe and the other actors - a play doesn't come full-blown even in a genius' mind.

And where does he get his inspiration? From the two greatest inspirations known to artists - love and starvation. The second is the lesser known of course, but just as profoundly moving. Nothing like having your creditors and landlords running after their investment and rent to goad you to produce - sometimes even masterpieces.

What's the creative process anyway but real life turned over and made "more real" by the imagination? What is the dialogue anyway but phrases heard in the weirdest places and given a meaning beyond the original intent? What is poetry anyway but personal joy and hurts taking wings in words?

But never mind the lessons or insights "Shakespeare in Love" imparts. Watch it for the sheer fun of it. Watch it for the sheer exuberance of it. Watch it for the laughter that it wrings from your heart and the poignancy that it stokes in your brain. Watch it for the sheer romance of it. Watch it and know that there is something more romantically tragic, or tragically romantic, than Leonardo DiCaprio saying goodbye to Kate Winslet on a sinking Titanic while Celine Dion drown everyone in syrup.

Shakespeare was never solemn. Certainly, he was never snobbish. Like Mozart, he was always one to improvise and coax the humblest member of the gallery to lend an ear. That he would go on to become a literary legend, in the same way that Mozart would go on to become a musical one, would have been for him only a bonus. He pleased the gallery. He pleased noble and yeoman alike, he pleased queen and queer alike, he pleased heaven and earth alike. It was enough.

That is the spirit "Shakespeare in Love" catches - in more ways than one. In the end, that too is what it does, that too is what it is. It is never solemn, it is never snobbish. It should please academics and fools alike, it should please culture vultures and plebeians alike, it should please cynics and lovers alike. That it should go on to win critical raves and even a lot of Oscars - all that should be bonus to its makers. The play's the thing to disturb the conscience of the king.

It's a contagious feeling. It's enough to make you young all over again.