A Film Geek review
When one imagines the greatest writer in English Literature composing his great works, the image is that of his noble brow furrowed with high purpose as his quill effortlessly records the words whispered into his ears by the angels perched on each shoulder. One does not imagine a scruffy, ink-stained wretch full of self-doubt, paralyzed by writer’s block, under pressure from greedy theater owners and doltish producers to write a hit. Knowing that William Shakespeare was a real man and not a demi-god descended from Mount Olympus to bestow his great plays upon the world, which of these two images do you find closest to reality? From this simple premise, writers Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard have crafted the year’s best screenplay. Mrs. Brown director John Madden has transformed it into the year’s best film. Apologies to Steven Spielberg and Terrence Malick, but these two great filmmakers must defer to the Bard as I bestow the coveted Film Geek Fifth Star upon Shakespeare in Love.
We first meet young Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) as he’s holed up in his studio practicing his signature because he can’t face the prospect of completing his latest Opus, titled Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate’s Daughter. The owner of the Rose Theater, Philip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush, looking like a refugee from Monty Python’s Jabberwocky), in dire financial straits himself, wants Shakespeare to write a sure-fire crowd-pleaser. "Love and a bit with a dog — that’s what they want," he says. But that horrible writer’s block has snuffed out Will’s creative spark. "My quill is broken," he laments to his shrink (Antony Sher), an anachronistic Freudian who raises an eyebrow at Will’s phallic references. Perhaps what Will needs is a new muse, someone to get his juices flowing. In short, young William Shakespeare needs to get laid.
Enter the Lady Viola De Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow), woman of means, lover of the theater and ardent fan of Shakespeare’s iambic pentameter. Viola is betrothed to the titled but landless Lord Wessex (Colin Firth), but soon catches Will’s eye. Before you can say "Titus Andonicus", the two are showering each other with luscious poetry in a balcony scene that will soon work its way into Will’s new play. Separated by class and wealth, the two are doomed to unconsummated love. Then one day, Viola appears at the Rose, disguised as a young man named Thomas Kent, to audition for the part of Romeo (the film makes much hay out of the proscription against women on the stage that held sway in Elizabethan London). With the play itself as cover, the two lovers are free to make, as Shakespeare himself so succinctly put it, the Beast with Two Backs.
This script is a wonder to behold: a bold and vibrant tapestry that expertly weaves its myriad plot threads into a joyous whole. Will’s play, which comes to echo his tragic love of Viola, soon morphs from a comedy into a tragedy now titled Romeo and Juliet. Meanwhile, the backstage intrigue mounts as the beleaguered Rose Theater confronts plague, an unctuous Master of Revels (Simon Callow) who considers actors and playwrights one step above vermin, and a rival theater that wants to hire Will away. He must contend with egotistical actors (Ben Affleck in a priceless cameo) and meddlesome producers (Tom Wilkenson). He must even confront rival playwright Christopher Marlowe (Rupert Everett), who freely offers writing advice, even tossing off the name "Mercutio" for one of the characters.
Throw in a generous helping of anachronistic sight gags, clever in-jokes and surprising swordfights, and you have a film for the ages. I particularly enjoyed the script’s insight into the creative process, even for a writer of Shakespeare’s genius. Bits of Romeo and Juliet are heard coming from the mouths of minor characters; Will freely cribs them for his play. The rehearsals begin well before the play is finished. Like all good writers, Will is a sponge, absorbing the emotions and dialogue of his own life and wringing them out into the vessel of his art. Writing, the film knows, is hard and thankless work. It also demonstrates that the writer’s muse is not a vague concept, but a necessary and concrete element of genius. While the script is pure fantasy, it is believable fantasy, and that makes all the difference.
Director John Madden brings the film to fruition with earthy production design and boundless energy. He films Shakespeare as a man always on the move. Will literally runs from one end of London to the other — he runs to Viola, he runs to the Rose to deliver the latest pages of his play, and he runs from Lord Wessex, who wants to kill him. Madden also coaxes superb performances from his leads. Joseph Fiennes, who appeared so ineffectual in Elizabeth, here displays the confidence of a young star. Gwyneth Paltrow has never much impressed me as an actress, but her radiance and charm are on ample display. If these two aren’t enough to convince you, I can throw in great comedic turns by Rush, Affleck and Wilkenson. I’ll even add the commanding presence of Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth (who has aged much from her comely days as Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth), who steals her every scene as the voice of reason amidst the turmoil surrounding the Rose.
As a public service to you, my loyal readers, I have sat through some truly awful films this year. If I have steered you wrong before, you have my most humble apologies. If, however, you have found this site of any service at all, take my advice and give this film your business. You won’t be sorry. Saving Private Ryan may be the favorite to win Best Picture of 1998, but Shakespeare in Loveclearly the better film. The former is a work of great technical skill. The latter is a work of art about a work of art, made with great passion and joy. I’m confident the Bard himself would approve.
CelebHead Rating: 5 Laurence Oliviers
