The Podium - Shakespeare in Love. Best Picture?
Friday, June 11, 2010 at 4:00AM The Podium
The Podium is an internet symposium where we give one person the stage to voice an opinion of their's on cinema. Do you agree? Disagree? Comments that agree must include a hearty "HARRUMPH!", and you can show your disagreement with a "RABBLERABBLE COUGH".
Shakespeare in Love. Best Picture?
By Marie Bagnell
***Warning** This review and analysis of Shakespeare in Love contains some spoilers, so if you haven't seen it, and don't want to know: DO NOT KEEP READING.
Back in 1999 Shakespeare in Love won several Oscars, including Best Picture (for the 1998 year), incurring the wrath of movie snobs everywhere. I know, I know. You thought Saving Private Ryan should have won. In an informal poll of friends, most of them rolled their eyes at the mention of this film. Would you be surprised to learn that this film scores a 93% on Rotten Tomatoes? For more than a decade, this film has gotten a bad rap and I'm here to hopefully change some minds. So, to do something I almost never do - Put myself out there - Shakespeare in Love deserved the Best Picture win for 1998. (whew, I said it).
It was a tough year. Elizabeth, Saving Private Ryan, Life is Beautiful, The Thin Red Line and Shakespeare in Love battled it out. I see why each of them was nominated (well, except The Thin Red Line. I haven't seen that one), but let me make an argument for why this film deserved to win.
It's a Smart Comedy
When I first read the concept of this film - A young Will Shakespeare falls in love while writing Romeo and Juliet - I thought, "Cute," expecting nothing more than a period romantic comedy. What I didn't expect was a film that would skillfully blend real facts, with myth, and a new love story, real people from history with fictional characters offering a fun view of theatre in the 16th century.
This was right around the time that I had started to read more of Shakespeare's plays and more about the history of England during his time. With all of this new-found knowledge, I saw the movie and was thrilled to see a lot of accuracy. Before you get too upset with my word choices- I don't mean accuracy in the idea that Shakespeare fell for a woman named Viola de Lessops and that this inspired his play. I mean accuracy with regards to the business of theatre in the 16th century, the world of the players, and many of the facts surrounding the real people who were involved in this world.
Shakespeare's life is shrouded in mystery. For a man who wrote so prolifically, we don't have a lot of evidence of who he really was. There are whole societies of people who believe that the man from Stratford named William Shakespeare did NOT write the plays we all know. There are many reasons why people believe them to be written by someone else, a list too long to write up here. There are people whose whole careers have been spent in proving the man from Stratford did NOT write these plays. This film playfully takes the stand that the man from Stratford IS the author and in a series of fun little moments pokes it finger in the eye of the nay-sayers. One example is the scene in which Will is seen writing his name over and over with different spellings. Multiple versions of his last name being one of the reasons people don't believe it was him (though, to offer a counter-point, there was no spelling standard in those days. Other authors did the same thing).
People who work in the film biz saw a film that brought a lot of the games of Hollywood to Elizabethan England. This may have seemed like a clever little gimmick to get people to laugh, but in reality a lot of it was true. Where do you think the rules of Hollywood began? Theatre, baby. Back in the Elizabethan day actors were well-known and enjoyed a measure of fame. Will Kempe (who we see briefly in the film at the beginning, struggling with the dog onstage) was one of the most famous clowns of Shakespeare's time and was often in his plays (Dogberry of Much Ado About Nothing is one of his roles). People went to see plays simply because he was in them. Ned Alleyn struts around proudly knowing he is adored because of the roles he plays. Being a player was at once revered and looked down upon (as is being an actor today). Joining a theatre company was a competitive business and yes, money often greased the wheels. Remind anyone of the film biz? This film shows both the positives and negatives of the biz with a self-mocking tone.
What else makes this comedy smart? Two words: Tom Stoppard. As any theater buff (or geek, nerd, whatever word you are most comfortable with) will tell you, the man is a genius. Who else but the man who wrote Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead (stage and film), Jumpers (stage), and Brazil (a film which many of you have talked about as one of your favorites) could bring Shakespeare and his cohorts so cleverly to life. Tom Stoppard is a wordsmith. I have no way of knowing which actual lines he wrote and which his co-writer, Marc Norman, wrote, but I can surmise. I'm betting he was responsible for a lot of the Elizabethan language in the film and a lot of the puns. Certainly the witty repartee between Will and Ned Alleyn seems particularly Stoppard. **SPOILER AHEAD**In the scene in which Will accuses Lord Wessex of killing Marlowe:
Ned Alleyn: "...it was a tavern brawl...Marlowe attacked, and got his own knife in the eye. A quarrel about the bill..."
Henslow: "The bill! Oh vanity, vanity!"
Ned Alleyn: "Not the billing, the bill!"
The play on words feels very Stoppard here.
As I mentioned, the other writer on this film is Marc Norman, a solid Hollywood player. Watching these two guys in interviews really shows you how well suited they were to write this film together. Marc Norman had Hollywood written all over him and Tom Stoppard seems so excited to be delving in the world of Shakespeare. Together they made it numerous and self-aware
Brilliant Cast
Geoffrey Rush is brilliant as real-life theatre owner, Phillip Henslowe. Sweaty and somewhat dirty, but all the while giving you the sense that this is a man who knows theatre and knows how to make money in it. He is in no way an actor, but used to dealing with them and the writers. He is the voice of knowledge who explains for Mr. Fennyman (and the rest of us) how theatre works. But with all his experience, even he is impressed when the rich Mr. Fennyman comes up with a plan to pay the actors less by offering them a "share in the profits."
Rupert Everett plays Christopher Marlowe. Marlowe is still a fascinating figure in history and is accurately portrayed as a playwright who made his mark earlier than Shakespeare. Marlowe was educated at Cambridge and one of the many rumors about him suggest he may have been a spy in the Queen's service during his university years This was a man who was known for reckless behavior and love of danger. Rupert Everett plays him as a confident man, comfortable in his own skin and intelligence. We easily believe that while drunk he'd pull out a knife in a fight over the bill.
Judi Dench. Dude. Okay, I know she won the Academy Award for this role and maybe you think that's recognition enough, but she makes Queen Elizabeth so real. Regal even when she is snoring to Shakepeare's Two Gentleman of Verona, you buy this woman as Queen. But this is no figurehead queen. I bought that this Elizabeth had kept the throne for decades, successfully fighting off assassination attempts and other challenges to her power. She enjoys the rules of court, but when they bore her, she will dismiss them.
Colin Firth. Ladies, we all love him from Pride and Prejudice and Bridget Jone's Diary, but when he awkwardly tries to kiss Viola after informing her that her father has bought him for her, I know I wasn't the only one cringing. Which made me a bigger fan than ever. He takes on the role of the the unromantic, undesirable Lord Wessex fully and unapologetically.
Joseph Fiennes. As I mentioned before, we know next to nothing about who Shakespeare was personally. The job for any actor who plays him is to make him a real person for the audience. Someone you can identify with. How do you do that while also playing the greatest playwright of the English language? Mr. Fiennes lets us see him insecure and scared, frustrated, and doubtful. He is a man who in one breath believes he is the best, but in the next needs validation. He gives him a romantic and playful side as well. He is flawed and intelligent. Not at all a caricature.
Gwenyth Paltrow. Now, I know there are a lot of haters out there, which I don't particularly understand. She handles playing a boy superbly, subtley changing the way she walks and talks, except for when she's supposed to forget. It's not Hilary Swank in Boys Don't Cry, but it's not supposed to be. Viola is stepping in the role of "male actor" for the first time and should be making the occasional mistake. Which means, it's deliberate on Paltrow's side and we are seeing ACTING.
True Historical Tidbits
Finally I love the accuracy of some of the bits, for lack of a better word, in the film. So much of what makes this film brilliant is the way the writers incorporated real events and people into their love story.
The timing. The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet was probably written in 1593- that is the belief of some scholars. Others say it is a much more general time period: 1591-1595. One possible reason the writers went with the more specific year will be explained later.
Philip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush), the theatre manager, did exist. In fact, it is from his actual diary that we know as much about the business of theatre at the time. We see him scribbling in it throughout the film and for all intents and purposes, this is true. He seems to have recorded finances, plays performed, cast lists and anything else that crossed his mind. His theater, The Rose (featured in the film) was where many of the more famous plays of the time were first performed.
John Webster. The creepy, sadistic teen who introduces himself to Shakespeare as John Webster was a fun moment for theatrical scholars. One of the first things he says to Will in the film:
John:"I was in a play. They cut my head off in Titus Andronicus. When I write plays, they will be like Titus."
Will: "You admire it?"
John: "I like it when they cut heads off. And the daughter mutilated with knives."
Kinda brilliant. John Webster grew up to be a playwright. His tragedies are well-known (and often still performed today). And yes, his plays were known for their gore.
**SPOILER**
The death of Marlowe: As already mentioned in this article, Marlowe is killed in an argument over a bill in a bar in the film. This is true, as far as can be known. He was killed in a bar in Deptford in 1593. This is one possible reason for the writers to agree with those scholars who believe R&J was written in 1593. The fact that the writers take this fact and turn it into a major plot device is brilliant. It could have been a throw-away moment, a simple footnote, but they use it to carry the action forward. Also, they pepper the script with brilliant little moments of foreshadowing, like when Marlowe says good-bye to Burbage and mentions that he's off to Deptford. A historian paying attention would immediately know what his fate was.
Ned Alleyn, Burbage, Mr. Tilney, the Admirals Men, the Chamberlain's Men. They all really existed and this film utilizes them so brilliantly. I never felt that they were just props to prove authenticity. They were there to move the story forward.
Final Thoughts:
When Shakespeare in Love won Best Picture it was something of a surprise to some. In a year where three of the nominees for Best Picture were war films and the other two were about Elizabethan England (including, obviously, Shakespeare in Love), how did the romantic comedy win? It could have been the mood of the voters at the time. Perhaps they wanted the film that left them feeling good, instead of traumatized (I LOVED Elizabeth, but felt exhausted afterward). Perhaps it was to pay back old Oscar omissions (as so often happens). Or perhaps, the simplest explanation of all. Hollywood loves a movie about itself. And while the film takes place 400 years before, it is ultimately about showbiz.
Or maybe it was the whole package. A terrific feel-good movie, a movie about the biz, a love story, and it was sometime unique. For me I loved that for two hours I could disappear into a lovely romantic world and meet my favorite playwright.
That's why I think it won. Because it was an escape. One of the most important and traditional functions of film is to get out of your own life for an hour or two and live in a fantasy, and this film does it....
Or maybe I'm wrong and it won because Hollywood is narcissistic and loves films about itself....Nah.
-MB
Is there an opinion you need to share with your fellow film fans? Drop us a line on our contact page, and maybe one week YOU can have The Podium.
Reader Comments (11)
That "Oooh! This is controversial and racially charged!" Best Picture that Crash won in 2005 should have been won by American History X in 1998. Because it's all of those things and also a great movie with very strong performances. Better than Shakespeare in Love AND Saving Private Ryan both (i've seen all 3).
In the prophetic words of 'My Cousin Vinny', and I do quote, "That is a lucid, intelligent, well-thought out objection."
However, RABBLERABBLE COUGH! Life Is Beautiful FTW!!!
Ok. I'll give this a HARRUMPH. To be perfectly honest, I did think Saving Private Ryan was the better film when it came out, but since then I seem to watch Shakespeare in Love about once a year. It's fun.
I have not re-visited Ryan since it was in theaters...
I think it's much simpler than all of that: the vote got split. Each of the other films were fantastic. SIL was good, but I didn't find it to be great. I thought it okay that it was nominated and I actually enjoyed the film more than I expected. I thought it would be a 'smart' Rom-Com, but it was deeper than that. I'm not trashing the film by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't think it deserved Best Picture. I really think the vote got split amongst the other films and this one probably just won by the skin of its teeth with the way the numbers played out.
When you have films about the hardships and absurdities of war, and dark historical epics pitted against a romantic comedy, that's going to divide people. It's just a matter of taste. I suppose the most common argument for Saving Private Ryan (or by extension all the other nominees) being more deserving of the win is because it was a more "meaningful" film. As Marie said, Shakespeare in Love won "because it was an escape". I agree with that. There's meaning in escapism too.
Others might not think so, and that's fine. I think The Thin Red Line is a masterpiece, and says more about war in one frame than most movies do in 2hrs (Saving Private Ryan included). Others think Saving Private Ryan is the better WWII picture. It's okay to disagree with the academy. They are not autonomous. Sometimes bad films get nominated and somehow win (coughCRASHcough) and sometimes great films are overlooked completely. It's the politics of the film business.
At the end of the day, you can do a lot worse than Shakespeare in Love. It's a film that deserved its nomination as Marie pointed out. It's intelligent, clever, and littered with great performances. It just had the misfortune of being pitted against more "serious" films. But "serious" doesn't always mean "better". An escapist fantasy can win too. It's only fair.
Great essay. I now have a reason to see the film.
Wow...Love the responses!, guys. Thanks.
Ken - Wow, I don't know if I realized that came out the same year as the others and it wasn't even nominated. As Alex says in his comments, sometimes great films are overlooked. I know that both Juan and I wondered why The Dark Knight was overlooked in 2008. (still kinda annoyed about that).
Lee- to ALSO quote My Cousin Vinny -" Uh... everything that guy just said is bullshit... Thank you. " ;)
Kelly - That's a good point and one I hadn't considered. That does happen often. Especially in situations where two films are from the same time period.
Alex - I just have to say - you said, in a much more succinct way, exactly what I was trying to put into words. And extremely eloquently. Thank you! :)
Chauncey - Thanks! I'm glad you are giving it a shot. I hope you enjoy it.
My pleasure, Marie! Great work!
Oh hells yeah Marie! Okay, okay, so I ADORE this movie. It makes me laugh, it makes me cry, and I can watch it over and over again. But putting all that aside, you essay is so well thought out and clear, there's really just no arguing with you. It's like you're Frank the Tank during the debate in Old School. HARRUMPH!
An excellent review of "Shakespeare in Love".
In fact, I read it three times, the first time I read it very quickly and then again slower and then to savor it a third time.
You wrote a wonderful analysis stating your view on why you thought the movie was so great. Made me want to view the movie again with
your review in mind. It is on my Netflix list now.
-Pauline (Juan's Grandmother)