The Guardian
January 24, 1999
By Emma Forest
... that is hardly the question. Shakespeare In Love, which opens on Friday, has charmed America and is already one of the most talked about British films in years. Emma Forrest explains
The combination of Gwyneth Paltrow and a moustache - worn as her character Viola De Lesseps disguises herself as a boy - could have seriously backfired. Instead, Shakespeare In Love has captured the movie-going imagination with a zeal that few other films this year will match. Six Golden Globe nominations, and it may well sweep the board at the Oscars. Potential gongs aside, it is to be celebrated as a costume drama that has nothing to do with the heritage industry; it has too much life and wit for that.You note the history, but feel the contemporary pull. (Paltrow and her co-star Joseph Fiennes certainly felt something in their pop star welcome at the film's London premiere this week.) It almost wasn't made. The original script, by Mark Norman, languished in the proposal stage at Universal, where Julia Roberts was attached to star. Gambling $4.5 million (more than many of their film's budgets), Miramax pictures, according to its boss Harvey Weinstein, purchased Shakespeare In Love as a vehicle for Paltrow and for director John Madden, basking in the glow of Mrs Brown.
Gwyneth Paltrow is, in Harvey Weinstein's own words, the first lady of Miramax. For those who love her, Paltrow is the new Grace Kelly. For those who like her, she has that useful quality, where even if she is not acting well, she still has a certain appeal. For those who can't bear her, she is living proof that you can be pale and uninteresting.
The English critics generally adore her because she can do a flawless British accent. And because we like our actresses with a rod up their arse. In fairness, Paltrow is a perfectly good actress, but one who can't blink without acting - Meryl Streep for the MTV generation.
Shakespeare In Love is ,without doubt, her best work. Even those still bothered by Paltrow are bemused by the fact that it is still possible, whilst disliking the central performance, to adore the film. That is because it is not Paltrow who is carrying the film - the concept is carrying the film.
The script, rewritten by Tom Stoppard is, as one would expect, very quirky, knowing, and attention-seeking in a good way. The original idea may have been Mark Norman's but it is Stoppard's intellect that makes the set-up such a confident one. Well aware that he's the cleverest boy in class, Stoppard, unlike the average Hollywood hack, doesn't have to mess around persuading you he knows the style and era. So you get a simple but pivotal scene between Paltrow and her nurse where she announces 'I will have romance. I will have adventure.' This makes all the Carry On cross-dressing utterly believable.
Stoppard has polished up numerous scripts, as well as written his own original screenplays, notably the film adaptation of his play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. This earlier film achieved a following, partly because of the presence of Tim Roth and Gary Oldman.Shakespeare in Love has been such a success, even in Middle America because the screen makes dumb people feel smart, and smart people feel like they're slumming it. Peppered with anachronistic jokes, the film does for costume drama what Scream did for the horror genre.
'I had that Christopher Marlow in the back of my boat,' boasts the man punting Shakespeare across the water to his love. It's almost, word for word, a line from Stoppard's play, The Invention Of Love. And it's precisely that Stoppard theatricality that movie-goers are so hungry for. They are tired of naturalistic, flat, mono screenplays, savouring, like the critics, that baroque dialogue. What really makes Shakespeare In Love such a success is that the extraordinary screenplay is perfectly complemented by such simple, unshowy direction. It is the director who manages to ground the film in reality, despite all those jokey anachronisms.
As he did with Mrs Brown, John Madden mixes purity with accessibility. He is playful without ever being 'check out our references' smug. Madden, from his work on Ethan Frome to Shakespeare, has always marginalised the arrogance factor. He never makes the audience feel stupid. In fact, the man who made a splash on Broadway in his twenties, is one of the great directors of actors working today.
Joseph Fiennes, so appalling in Elizabeth [HUH?], shines as Shakespeare. Teen hearthrob Ben Affleck is utterly without vanity in his portrayal of a pompous actor. Rupert Everett, playing Shakespeare's archrival, Christopher Marlowe, is unusually restrained. His Marlowe has a world-weary quality, a Marlowe who is cynical but still inspired. That he conveys so much is amazing considering he has hardly any screen time. If Judi Dench gets an Oscar for best supporting actress (which seems likely) it will be for approximately eight minutes of film.
In its review of Shakespeare In Love, Sight and Sound mentions the film's comic range alone, moving from Monty Python to Carry On. So many Hollywood films are either crude comedies or romantic comedies, painted by numbers to appeal to teenage boys or middle-aged women.
Shakespeare In Love is one of the first films in years that just cannot be put into a box. And unlike other romantic comedies it is not afraid to be genuinely romantic, risking (and avoiding) pretension, rather than settling for goo. It also contains one of the great costume drama sex scenes, as Shakespeare and Viola De Lessups make love whilst reading to each other from Romeo and Juliet, a work in progress.
The film is yet another triumph for Miramax, the little studio that can, and which has an impeccable sense of timing. Head honcho Weinstein has a knack for developing films that go against the major studio grain, yet are culturally attractive enough to get multiple Oscar nods (as was the case with The Piano, The English Patient and Goodwill Hunting).
Miramax, which also spends a stunning amount on publicity, pioneered the studio practice of sending videos of the film to every single member of the academy. Harvey Weinstein has a reputation for getting heavily involved in post-production, although Mrs Brown was already developed as a BBC Scotland film before he came on board. Weinstein, who propelled Mrs Brown from British TV to American success, has excellent film instincts.
When, at the climax of the film, the cast performs the finished Romeo and Juliet for the first time, the borders are banished between theatre and life, which is exactly what Shakespeare was about.
That scene is truest to the Shakespearean spirit (more so than Branagh's Hamlet or the jazzed up Romeo and Juliet). Because there wasn't delineation with people sitting quietly or standing at the back. They were talking and standing and eating. There was no separation between theatre and life.
And if that doesn't impress you, Gwyneth Paltrow in a moustache is quite a sight to behold.
Shakespeare In Love: bluffer's guide
1. Doesn't Gwyneth sound like she comes from East Cheam
2. Surely Joe is even better looking than brother Ralph
3. It just has to be Stoppard's finest script (and is he still going out with Felicity Kendal?)
4. I always suspected that that Shakespeare was a bit of a lad
5. Lovely, understated direction from Madden, I thought
