Shakespeare in Love (1998)

Instant Favorite.

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

I think what offends most students and teachers of the Bard is that this film is highly fictionalized and historically inaccurate, but starts with a written prologue to suggest it really happened. Shakespeare's real wife, Anne Hathaway is only mentioned 2 times. not even her name, and it isn't quite explained why he lives completely separate from her to write plays in London or why he never wrote or visited her. Humor is crude, vulgar and violence exaggerated. Yet somehow knives press throats and sword battles happen without anyone getting hurt with a scratch. The cliches of follow that boat, or to suggest Shakespeare's apothecary had a shrink couch for him to lie back and talk to by appointment were also ridiculous.

You remember what Shrek did for animated film? That's what this does for modern period pieces. You go in not knowing what to expect. Expecting some boring rendition of Shakespeare's life. It's so far from that. And boy will you fall in love with Joseph Fiennes. If you didn't know the "other" Fiennes - you will now. Without spoiling it - you will see a story within a story centered around one of the most famous Shakespearean works. It is genius. Also the first time I saw Gwyneth playing a brit and she does it amazingly well. And not to be forgotten - the music is enchanting and does what a soundtrack should do - transports you, engages you deeper into the story. Costumes - superb. Geoffrey Rush - superb. Even Ben Affleck playing this type of role - he's awesome. Actually, a stand-out in the film and doesn't have the biggest role. Just so well done. See it. I don't even have anything bad to say about it so I had to give it a 10. Oh and don't forget Julie Dench. Brilliant as usual, even more brilliant than usual.

It's sad, that this movie's reputation has suffered somewhat since its initial reception, largely because the Oscars foolishly choose this fantasy period rom-com over the realistic, grittiest, war torn themes of 'Saving Private Ryan' for the 1998 Best Picture Category. While, personally, I thought director Steve Spielberg's film 'Saving Private Ryan' was indeed the better film, I do have to say, the tale of a young William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) battling writer's block, until he meets his muse, an aristocrat's daughter enamored with theater and romance, Viola De Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow), inspiring him to write one of his most famous plays, isn't that bad as some modern critics make it out to be. Without spoiling the movie directed by John Madden, too much, I have to say, 'Shakespeare in Love', is indeed delightful, romantic, and funny, especially for those whom field is in entertainment. I can see why, this movie would appeal to many audiences members. After all, William Shakespeare's is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. Everybody knows his work, however, nobody really knows, about his personal life. While, it's safe to say, that this movie version of his life is highly fictional, due to the case that Shakespeare's greatest work 'Romeo & Juliet' was actually inspired by a pre-existing stories, written by others writers, like Arthur Brooke in 1562 as the Italian verse called 'The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet' and retold in prose in 'Palace of Pleasure 'by William Painter in 1567, in which, Shakespeare only adapted to play. Still, I do like that, the movie, somewhat entertain us, by humorous cleverly inserting, words, events and imagery, on how Shakespeare might have gotta some of his ideas for his poets and plays. Who knows, maybe, some of the things, that playwright, Tom Stoppard & screenwriter, Marc Norman could had happen! After all, many of the background details in the film, minus the whole new world subplot & jokes of the modern studio system thing are pretty accurate. Plus, Shakespeare indeed expanded the original plot by developing a number of supporting characters, particularly Mercutio and Paris. However, the idea of that Shakespeare was in love with a woman, when writing it, might be question. Many of people believe that the play was honestly, written for a man, due to its many 'Homoeroticism' tones between Mercutio and its title character. Regardless, there is also the controversy about if William Shakespeare was indeed the writer of this play and others, as many believe that he wasn't. While, it's true, that Shakespeare never wrote a play for theater manager, Philip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush) as no payments to the writer are listed in Henslowe's surviving account books, I really doubt, anybody else, wrote this play, especially, fellow playwright, Christopher Marlowe (Rupert Everett), as Marlowe's characters development tend to be very dry and two dimensional. William Shakespeare's writing really did stood out, compare to the others playwrights at the time, for example, his themes about fate & dreams were rarely used at the time. Even the topic of romance had not been viewed as a worthy topic for tragedy, until 'Romeo & Juliet' came out. Although the play is not considered as great as some of Shakespeare's later work, at the time, it is an exceptional work for the young playwright destined for much bigger things. Regardless of the lack of historic accurate in the film, the film does show that William Shakespeare is destined for greatest. However, the film's plot did bug me on how alleged similarity, it is, to mid-20th-century novel, 'No Bed for Bacon' by Caryl Brahms and S J Simon. While, I wouldn't say, this film is a total rip-off of that novel, as the bulk of the book focuses instead on a handful of several other historical characters of the period like Sir Walter Raleigh's doomed search for fashionable cloak, while worry about the nobles, tasting their first potato. I do see, some similarities in this film, when it comes to characters, like Viola falling for a stressed-out Shakespeare, while dressing up as a boy in his stage play. This book has more to claims, then, author Faye Kellerman had on the film stealing from her 1989 novel 'The Quality of Mercy', which hardly seem alike. Regardless of similarities, I do have to say, the film does stand out on its own. Most of all of the cast (led by Gwyneth Paltrow, Joseph Fiennes, Geoffrey Rush, Colin Firth, Ben Affleck, and Judi Dench) were at the top of their game. However, I couldn't call, Gwyneth Paltrow's acting as Oscar worthy. She was just alright with her near-flawless English accent. Nevertheless, I did think that Dame Judi Dench deserve her Oscar win, as Queen Elizabeth 1, even if her screen time was less than 10 minutes, out of 123 minutes film. On the other hand, I did believe that Geoffrey Rush got snub, out of his best supporting actor award. He was wonderful as Phillip Henslowe. I also believe the costumes and sets really stood out as Elizabethan Era design. It was wonderful to look at. I also believe the film score by composer, Stephen Warbeck was easy in the ears. It was charm to listen to. Overall: While, some people might hate the film for its tales of a Hollywood romantic fantasy torture artist finding love, without any meaningful sense of merit. Other will find it, as a blessed relief from gritty real-life true art is angst type of films. I just hope 'Shakespeare in Love' would get more the other half. It needs more love and appreciative. In the end, it kinda deserves that. It was indeed a good movie.

The setting is 1593 London, in the glory days of the Elizabethan theater. The screen caption reads, "Two playhouses are fighting it out for writers and audiences: The Curtain Theater with Richard Burbage, England's most famous actor, and the Rose, built by Philip Henslowe." Plays are often closed because of plagues and bad debts. Because Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush) has a cash flow problem, he is literally being legally (?) tortured by Hugh Fennyman (Tom Wilkinson) at film's commencement. Henslowe saves further pain by explaining that as Will Shakespeare's patron, he is expecting the playwright's latest play within two weeks. The show should garner twenty pounds, or enough to pay off his debt. The working title of the play is "Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter," the precursor of "Romeo and Juliet." In reality, Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) cannot even get started as he has run out of ideas. Now Will needs inspiration. He tells therapist Dr. Moth (Antony Sher) that his quill is broken and that the organ of his imagination has dried up. The therapist advises Will to seek a new romance. Enter Viola de Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow). But there are complications, one of which is that Will has a wife in Stratford. Also, Viola has been promised by her rich father to another man, Lord Wessex (Colin Firth), a most disagreeable fellow. Wessex discusses his tobacco farms in Virginia, but he is several decades early! But Viola falls in love with Will, and they have an affair. When aging and sharp-tongued Queen Elizabeth (Judi Dench) seems to approve of the upcoming marriage, she quips to Wessex that "Have her, then, but you are a lordly fool. She's been plucked since I saw her last, and not by you. It takes a woman to know it." Viola loves poetry and wants to act, but she is not yet allowed on stage because of her gender ("the law of the land has our beauties played by pipsqueak boys"). She disguises herself as a mustachioed man, Thomas Kent.Meanwhile Kit Marlowe has been killed. Will blames himself, as he had misled Wessex into believing that Kit had plucked Viola. But Will soon learns that Kit did not perish at the hand of Wessex; rather he died in a quarrel over a bill at a tavern (In real life Marlowe died at age 32 at Deptford under mysterious circumstances.). There would be a later sword fight between Will and Wessex. When Viola is discovered to be a woman, the Rose is closed down. But then Burbage offers his Curtain Theater, and the play is on. It is successful as the Queen humorously pardons Viola (Thomas!). Of course, Will can never really marry Viola; he works on his next play, "Twelfth Night." While it takes a few liberties, this fictional story well captures the flavor of the late 16th century, and shows the difficulties in arranging for the plays, how they were often racked with financial problems, backstage politics, and court intrigue. The period sets and costumes are wonderfully done. John Madden created a film that is energetic and witty; it is a fine romantic comedy with tongue-in- cheek humor. For the most part, the casting works well. The statuesque Gwyneth Paltrow is quite appealing, speaks Shakespearean well, and artistically displays her "golden apples" for folks to admire. She shows great chemistry in her scenes with Fiennes, but in reality she is much too feminine to pass as a man on stage. Judi Dench was undoubtedly authoritarian as Queen Elizabeth. Ben Affleck (as Ned Alleyn), who speaks in modern English, is no Shakespearean actor. Geoffrey Rush has some nice comical lines, like "That's no one important, that's the author." Rupert Everett is uncredited as Christopher "Kit" Marlow. (At the time, the struggling Shakespeare was engaged in a rivalry with the already popular Kit as to who was the greater playwright. Nonetheless, both do show grace to each other in the film.) The feature certainly was one of the best of the 1998 year, and in fact won seven Academy Awards, including the Oscar for Best Picture.