![]() |
Joseph Fiennes and Gwyneth Paltrow juggle love and inspiration in the delightful Shakespeare in Love |
It’s 1593 and Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) has writer’s
block. His latest play, Romeo and Ethel the Pirate’s Daughter just can’t
get started despite the fact he’s promised theatre manager Philip Henslowe
(Geoffrey Rush) that he’ll have it ready in a few days. Will only begins to
find inspiration when he falls in love with Viola de Lessops (Gwyneth Paltrow)
– little realising that Viola and the promising young actor in his company,
Thomas Kent, are one-and-the-same. Viola, passionate about the theatre, dreams
of acting on the stage and falls in love with Shakespeare (while keeping her
Thomas Kent identity secret) – but her wealthy parents want her to marry the
noble Lord Wessex (Colin Firth). Will these two star-crossed lovers find
happiness? Or will their destiny follow the lines of the increasingly dark play
about two young Verona lovers, that Romeo and Ethel is morphing into?
The largest part of Shakespeare in Love’s success
rests with its script. The original idea had been doing the rounds in Hollywood
for several years (Julia Roberts was determined to do it at one point, but only
with Daniel Day-Lewis as Shakespeare, who was not interested). Marc Norman
developed the concept and a plotline (originally much darker). But the film’s
captivating wit and playfulness only really cemented itself when Tom Stoppard
adapted the script into the frothy, super-smart comedy it became, crammed with
riffs and gags about the Bard, Elizabethan theatre and show business. It’s also
got a very funny – and humanising – idea of the world’s most famous writer
suffering from writer’s block and then falling in love like he’s in one of his own
plays.
Stoppard’s other trick was to repackage the concept into a delightful romantic comedy, centring the love story and downplaying other elements (such as Shakespeare’s quest to go solo and build his theatre career). With that, and the plot brilliantly refracting and reflecting Romeo and Juliet in tone and structure (just like that play, the first half is pure comedy, the second half darker in tone). In particular, the film is crammed with Shakespearean plot points and themes (from cross-dressing to plays-within-plays, mistaken identities, ghosts etc etc) all of which playfully appear, cramming the film with delightful easter eggs.
It’s a celebration of the joy and magic of theatre – but it
also hit big in Hollywood, because it’s essentially a Hollywood-studio comedy
transmuted into the 1590s. Henslowe feels like a chancing B-movie producer, in
debt who feels that with the idea of promising a share of profits (“there never
are any”) instead of a salary, that his financial backer “may have hit on
something”. There are puns about the unimportance of writers, billing on
posters, the neurosis of creative people (even including an Elizabethan
psychiatrist), oversized production credits, forced “happy endings” and sticking
to tried-and-tested formulas. Gags call back to show-biz staples (“The show
must…” “Go on!”). While it may be set in a theatre, there is a lot of the
Hollywood studio in this.
But, with Stoppard at the pen, it was never going to be
anything other than a loving tribute to the power of theatre to change lives.
Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is presented as a landmark in theatre
history, a shift towards putting real-life emotion on stage instead of a few
cheeky laughs and “a bit with a dog”. There is a wonderful plotline for Tom
Wilkinson’s at-first all-business moneylender Fennyman, who discovers in
himself a sense of wonder and delight for the theatre that melts his heart.
(Wilkinson is outstanding here, a brutal man turned teary-eyed spectator,
thrilled to be playing the apothecary). It weaves its charms so well about the
delights of theatre, that you’ll even forgive the cliché of the stammering
actor who finds his confidence on the first night. You even get a belting
performance of Romeo and Juliet
(with all the dull bits removed).
What really sucks in audiences through is the love-story –
and Shakespeare in Love has a belter of a romantic plot. Riffing on Twelfth
Night, As You Like It and of course Romeo and Juliet among
many others, it’s a delightful series of misunderstandings, confusions and then
passion, that eventually builds to an ending that’s bittersweet but true. It’s
also beautifully played by the actors. Joseph Fiennes is so good here, a
masterful display of light comedy tinged with sadness, so quick and electric
with inspiration that I’m still amazed he didn’t go onto to better things.
Paltrow’s teary Oscar-acceptance has rather blighted the memory
of her performance, but she has an earnestness and innocence that is deeply
endearing and brings with it a radiant intelligence and emotional maturity that
sees her turn into a realist. Wisely, the film’s ending sheds the other, minor
plots, to hone in on an ending that is both sad and hopeful, that reflects real
life (Shakespeare was after all, a real man married to someone else in
Stratford) and sets up a thematic idea of love and inspiration being a
life-long romance, that touches every moment of our lives, even when the loved
person themselves is far away.
Directed with a smooth, professional sense of pace and joy by John Madden, it becomes a sweeping, surprisingly epic film, with a brilliant reconstruction of Elizabethan England and a luscious musical score by Stephen Warbeck heightening each scene’s emotional impact. The leads are marvellous, and there isn’t a weak-link in the strong cast. Judi Dench famously won an Oscar for her 8 minutes, but then its quality not quantity that matters and Dench’s archness is perfect for the role. Rush is hilarious as the grubby Henslowe, Affleck never better than his grand-actor parody, Colin Firth scowls expertly as “the other man” and Rupert Everett is dry and witty in a brief cameo as Christopher Marlowe, feeding Shakespeare suggestions.
You could say that Shakespeare in Love is just a
romantic comedy. In many ways that would be fair. It doesn’t re-invent a genre,
like Saving Private Ryan did. But, it’s a brilliantly mounted,
intelligent and extremely funny one, with a superb script, some brilliant
performances and wonderfully mounted. While it makes some good riffs on
theatre, Shakespeare and the nature of love, it’s principle mission is to
entertain – a big cinematic entertainment about the greatest playwright ever.
And don’t we always say that comedy is exactly what the academy is biased
against?