I watched this film several years ago and again tonight. I liked it quite a bit more the second time around. I guess that I got past the absurdity of this depiction of Shakespeare's life as a young man and approached the film, this time, on its own terms, as a re-imagining of what might have been. Shakespeare in Love was brought to fruition by director John Madden.

Historical Background: I'm a former fan of the Oakland Raiders, so I've known for quite some time now that John Madden is one heck of a guy, what with leading the Raiders to an NFL championship before moving on to become a highly animated football commentator. Imagine my surprise upon learning that John Madden has also directed about a dozen feature films, including some rather successful ones. That bit of background was, of course, a bit of lame humor on my part. The football coach and the filmmaker are two different John Maddens, though the football one is probably large enough to encompass both. The idea of compressing the two men into one corpus is not a whole lot more fanciful than some of the intriguing flights of historical fantasy that Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard have incorporated into Shakespeare in Love.

John Madden, the filmmaker, was born in Portsmouth, Hampshire, England in 1949. After a successful career in theater and television, Madden began making feature films, starting with Wings (1983), which he had already directed as a stage play on Broadway. Madden then directed Grownups (1985), for the Showtime cable network. Madden's first feature film for the big screen was Ethan Frome (1993). After three additional modest efforts, Madden scored his first major success with Mrs. Brown (1997). That proved to be just a warm up for the stunning success that Madden would achieve the next year with the Oscar winning Best Film, Shakespeare in Love (1998). Madden also directed Captain Corelli's Mandolin (2001), which I seem to have liked somewhat more than most other reviewers.

The Story: In Elizabethan England, poor, young Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) has a bad case of writer's block, as he explains to his proto-shrink, Dr. Moth (Antony Sher), in a profusion of Freudian innuendos. "It's as if my quill has broken," he whines. Will has been commissioned by theater owner Philip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush) to produce a comedy, tentatively entitled "Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter." The debt-racked Henslowe figures to lose an ear or a nose if he is unable to quickly pay down what he owes to the ruthless impresario, Hugh Fennyman (Tom Wilkinson). Time is of the essence and Shakespeare suddenly discovers his muse in the form of the radiant Vila De Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow), a lady whose parents, Sir Robert De Lesseps (Nicholas Le Prevost) and Lady De Lesseps (Jill Baker), have more wealth than lineage. They plan to marry their daughter off to the moronic Lord Wessex (Colin Firth), who has lineage by no wealth. The match will require the blessing of Queen Elizabeth (Judi Dench), but seems to be pretty much a done deal.

Too bad for Will because Viola has all the potential to be a very inspiring muse! She's rich and beautiful, loves romantic poetry, and even has the good taste to prefer the writing of the young Mr. Shakespeare to that of his more established competitor, Christopher Marlowe (Rupert Everett), about whom Shakespeare comments, dismissively, "Lovely waistcoat. Shame about the poetry." Viola's an independent young woman, for her era, and longs to perform on the stage. Trouble is, women were not permitted to perform on stage at the time. Female roles were assumed by effeminate men or young boys in drag. Viola decides to try out for the part of Romeo, disguised as a man. Will is duly impressed and, when the novice actor suddenly flees, Will pursues the "lad," thereby inadvertently encountering Viola, with whom he is immediately smitten. And a smitten Bard is a prolific bard. Magnificent declarations of love spew forth in the form of immortal sonnets. The romantic Viola is equally enamored with this man of elevated expression. Such a love faces monumental obstacles, however, in the form of Lord Wessex and the inviolable class distinctions of Elizabethan England.

Themes: Foremost among the several themes of this film is the role that passionate romance can play as a source of creative inspiration. Though we know little about the particulars of Shakespeare's sources of personal inspiration for his work, it seems likely that the man must have experienced some intensely romantic feelings, at one or more stages in his life, to have written such inspired prose and poetry.

Another intriguing theme is whether love expressed in prose or poetry can ever live up to the worth of the "real thing." There's a cute side story in this film involving a wager between the disguised Shakespeare and the preposterous Lord Wessex concerning whether a play can ever truly possess profoundly romantic qualities. Queen Elizabeth appoints herself the arbiter for the bet, to be settled whenever an appropriate test case should arise. What better measure of the issue could one propose than a performance of Romeo and Juliet?

Some other incidental themes are touched upon, as well, such as the rigidity of class structure in Elizabethan England, repression of women (arranged marriages and exclusion from many professions, including acting), and the lack of esteem in which writers were generally held.

Production Values: The screenplay for this film is nothing short of brilliant. The idea for the script was apparently the brainstorm of Marc Norman, while Tom Stoppard added much of the scholarly flourishes and Shakespearean wit. The pair shared credit for what became a highly original and intoxicating script. There's no pretense, here, of historical accuracy. Indeed, precious little is known about the details of Shakespeare's early life. Anyone expecting a biographical presentation of Shakespeare's life from this film is in for a shock and, possibly, disappointment. This is a fantasy loosely inspired by history and the scriptwriters have allowed their imaginations to run wild. One shouldn't be fooled, however, by the high-spirited, jubilant nature of the screenplay. Underneath the apparent frivolity is a carefully structured and brilliantly conceived effort. One treat in the script is the extent to which it is laced with Shakespeare's own poetry and prose. Lines from his sonnets are integrated seamlessly, along with scenes from Romeo and Juliet, in both rehearsal and performance. Many times, the lines that are quoted are simultaneously applicable to the play and to the film's own storyline, adding new meaning to immortal lines already multi-layered by the playwright's own genius.

A second clever device is that the movie uses many of the same kinds of elements that Shakespeare routinely built into his plays, such as passionate romance, masquerades, mistaken identities, men dressed up like women, adroit plot twists, backstage farce, scheming rivals, avenging ghosts, references to other Shakespearean works, and vain actors. The pacing is superb throughout and the dialog almost constantly elevated by the Bard's own contributions.

Then, thirdly, the film engages us in a view of what theater might have been like in Elizabethan times. We see the physical layout of the London theaters of the time and the relationship between the performers and the audience. We see the process of casting and the nature of some of the stage props. We get a sense of the financial problems, censorship issues, restrictions on women performers, and conflicts of personalities. It's a nice lesson in the history of theater practices. All in all, the script is the foremost star of this film and it was rewarded with an Oscar.

This is also a very attractive film. Costume designer Sandy Powell gives us a gorgeous array of garments for every stratum of the Elizabethan society. It required quite an effort, considering that this film has numerous extras, ranging from homeless street people to the Queen herself. Powell deservedly won an Oscar for Best Costume Design. The sets are splendid, as well, especially the two theaters, but also the Elizabethan mansion of the De Lesseps, the horse drawn carriages, and the Queen's palace. Martin Childs earned an Oscar for Best Art Direction. The score, by Stephen Warbeck, also won an Oscar.

Various reviewers differ on the effectiveness of the two leads. I have mixed feelings about the performance by Joseph Fiennes. It's hard for me to believe that the greatest writer of the English language could have been as extroverted, frivolous, and libido-driven as Fiennes and the script make him out to be. That aside, I felt that the doe-eyed Fiennes was a major contributor to the high energy that this film maintains throughout. Joseph Fiennes, who is the younger brother of the more renowned Ralph Fiennes, previously appeared in Stealing Beauty (1996) and had a major role in another Elizabethan drama in the same year as the present film (1998): Elizabeth.

Gwyneth Paltrow seems to elicit extreme reactions from both critics and filmgoers. My view is that she's such an evident type that her range is inevitably constrained. I suspect that those who say that she can't act are responding to that limitation. I think that she's a pretty effective actress within her narrow range. She'll be only as effective in a film as the part allows her to be. If the part matches what she can deliver, she's fun to watch. I thought she was very good in Emma (1996) and that she was effective in the present film as well. The part required someone who radiates and Paltrow has that quality. One can credibly envision a man being inspired by her particular kind of beauty. Paltrow won an Oscar for her performance in this film.

There is consensus among various reviewers about the quality of the casting for the secondary roles. It's a very impressive group drawn from the best English acting talent. Geoffrey Rush is excellent as the precariously situated Philip Henslowe, Tom Wilkinson as Fennyman, the impresario who ultimately becomes stage struck, Steve O'Donnell as Fennyman's dimwitted henchman, Antony Sher as the quasi-therapist, Ben Affleck as the vain Ned Alleyn, Imelda Staunton as Viola's nurse, Simon Callow as the Queen's censor, and Colin Firth as the loveless Lord Wessex. The scene-stealer of the cast, however, is Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth. Dench won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for her work here. Bravo!

Bottom-Line: The British Film Institute lists this film as the 49th best British film all-time. I'd say that's about right. Shakespeare in Love earned seven Oscar trophies and six other nominations. My copy of this film is VHS but I plan to replace it with a DVD version. If you appreciate Shakespeare, you'll get an extra kick out of this film, but it's likely to be great fun for any viewer who enjoys either comedy or romance.

Recommended:
Yes

Video Occasion: Good Date Movie
Suitability For Children: Not suitable for Children of any age