Movie-A-Day #110: Shakespeare in Love

[Stout]

I am very sorry to be so late in putting this up (though it is still today now!!!). This is literally my first free time since 8am.

I know, I know...2 in one week...well, there aren't two more contrasting Shakespearean movies out there.

As opposed to Scotland, PA, SIL is a romantic look at Shakespeare, through artistic bending and breaking of historical facts and a fictional romance, utilizing many aspects of Shakespeare's plays.

First, I'll give the Yahoo writeup, as I don't think I need to personally sum this one up:

A witty, fast-moving romantic comedy set in London in 1593, follows the trials and tribulations of Will Shakespeare, a struggling young playwright suffering from a dreadful bout of writer's block. No matter how hard he tries, he just can't seem to make any headway with his latest work, "Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter." Somehow, even the title doesn't sound quite right. But then, Will meets and falls instantly in love with the startlingly beautiful Viola who, desperate to become an actor (in a time when women are not allowed to perform in the theater), disguises herself as a man to audition for his play. Inspired by love, Will's creative powers are unleashed as his great love story, "Romeo and Juliet," is brought to life for the first time.

Okay, what this doesn't mention is accuracy. The movie contains many historical places, people and events, but it absolutely butchers the truth involving all of them. And, quite honestly, who the hell cares? It's so artfully done, so masterful, and so completely captures the spirit of Shakespeare's time, world, and possible experiences, that it's a classic. Hell, my Shakespeare professors, one of which is fast becoming famous in the field, absolutely LOVE this film.

You have everything from lines of Shakespeare's sprinkled throughout the play (when he's at the apothecary and says, 'Words, words, words', he is quoting a FAMOUS Hamlet line), lots of storylines from the play (Viola, the love interest, is actually a character from 12th Night who becomes shipwrecked and disguises herself as a man in the foreign land, in order to get around easier), and even little hints of stuff (Romeo and Juliet have what's termed a 'holy palmer's kiss', where Romeo puts his hands together with Juliet in a type of prayer-kiss, then kisses her for real...all while at a dance...and what does Will do in SIL? Dances with Viola while they hold their hands together in an almost perfect recreation of the 'holy palmer's kiss').

Okay, I'm done raving now. I know, I know, I'm a hopeless Shakespearean, and I'm sure everyone wants me to shut up about it already.

Seriously, though, this one's a winner...and NOT just a chick flick. I mean, you get to see Paltrow naked, for God's sake

 

[Chaplin]

But they never claimed this was an historically accurate film. It's total speculation, which I love, mostly I love the relationship between Wil and Marlowe, which to me was the backbone of the film. That probably isn't a popular view, to be sure, but Wil's relationship with the more popular Marlowe seemed to drive him (along with Viola) to make Romeo & Juliet as great as it was.

And when Marlowe dies, you sense that Wil really blames himself. Of course, in the movie, that is actually how he is supposed to feel. But I think historically, Marlowe DOES die in a bar fight, but I don't know if he actually knew Shakespeare at that time (like in the film, Shakespeare was a down and out writer at the time).

 

[Mike Olbinski]

Originally posted by Chaplin
But they never claimed this was an historically accurate film.

Wasn't Paltrow getting naked in this considered historic?

Or was that just me?



Mike

 

[Evil Ash]

This movie isn't historically accurate?! You mean like the fact that his DARK HAIRED mistress was played by a BLONDE?!

Actually this was a very good movie and I enjoyed a great deal. Good choice!

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by Chaplin
But they never claimed this was an historically accurate film. And when Marlowe dies, you sense that Wil really blames himself. Of course, in the movie, that is actually how he is supposed to feel. But I think historically, Marlowe DOES die in a bar fight, but I don't know if he actually knew Shakespeare at that time (like in the film, Shakespeare was a down and out writer at the time).

No, they never did claim it was historically accurate. I love that it isn't because we don't know enough about him to make a movie.

Marlowe does die in a bar fight, whether through a mere brawl or as a result of his secret services to the crown on the continent, will never be known.

I'm certain Marlowe and Shakespeare knew each other, but I haven't gotten to any materials on their relationship. I'm in the middle of the authoratative biography 'Shakespeare, a Documentary Life'.

The one bone I'll pick, though, is your last statement. Shakespeare was anything BUT down and out at the time. By this time he's probably finished, in this likely order, 'The Comedy of Errors', 'Titus Andronicus', 'The Taming of the Shrew', 'Henry VI (2, 3, then 1)', 'Richard III', 'Love's Labour's Lost', 'Two Gentlemen of Verona', and 'King John'. These are all placed, in roughly this order, between 1590 and 1593. He's quite a playwright already, although most of these, with the exception of Shrew and Richard III are considered some of his rougher works.

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by Evil Ash
This movie isn't historically accurate?! You mean like the fact that his DARK HAIRED mistress was played by a BLONDE?!

Actually this was a very good movie and I enjoyed a great deal. Good choice!

Actually, nothing is known for sure as to a mysterious dark-haired mistress. He wrote those sonnets for the (Earl?) of Southampton, and like as not they were either contrived or written for his own mistress/love/imagination. Of course, romantics through history just HAVE to speculate on if it is the mysterious (and her name almost eludes me at the moment) Dark Luce? Black Luce? Dark Lucy? Black Lucy? Can't quite recall.

You never know, though. They may have been to a dark haired mistress of his. We just can't know.

 

[Evil Ash]

Originally posted by Stout
Actually, nothing is known for sure as to a mysterious dark-haired mistress. He wrote those sonnets for the (Earl?) of Southampton, and like as not they were either contrived or written for his own mistress/love/imagination. Of course, romantics through history just HAVE to speculate on if it is the mysterious (and her name almost eludes me at the moment) Dark Luce? Black Luce? Dark Lucy? Black Lucy? Can't quite recall.

You never know, though. They may have been to a dark haired mistress of his. We just can't know.

Yeah I know. I was joking hence the

Truth be told there is little known about the motivation of William Shakespeare in some of his work.

Was the dark-haired mistress that he wrote about in his sonnets his own mistress or was he writing it for someone else and it was about their mistress? We don't know. Was the dark-haired reference used to throw people off of her identity? Maybe. Did he even have a mistress? Probably, but in all honesty we don't know that either (or at least there is not any evidence other than the sonnets that I know of)

When he did his historical plays was he giving his true opinion of those past kings or was simply brown-nosing with the current royal family so that he could be given the title of gentleman (which many people speculate is the reasoning)? Probably a combination of both

Often when we talk of the motivation of Shakespeare, we are just speculating.

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by Evil Ash
Yeah I know. I was joking hence the

Truth be told there is little known about the motivation of William Shakespeare in some of his work.

Was the dark-haired mistress that he wrote about in his sonnets his own mistress or was he writing it for someone else and it was about their mistress? We don't know. Was the dark-haired reference used to throw people off of her identity? Maybe. Did he even have a mistress? Probably, but in all honesty we don't know that either (or at least there is not any evidence other than the sonnets that I know of)

When he did his historical plays was he giving his true opinion of those past kings or was simply brown-nosing with the current royal family so that he could be given the title of gentleman (which many people speculate is the reasoning)? Probably a combination of both

Often when we talk of the motivation of Shakespeare, we are just speculating.

Very well said, my friend.

We do know a bit about his motivation/opinions of his history plays. He wished to do no more than twist the facts into his own stories so they'd sell-hence, Richard III, who may or may not have done all Shakespeare said, is now considered a complete villain by many.

Of course, it IS also tempered by having to make sure he doesn't upset Elizabeth, and later James I. Funny-when I read Richard II (the king who is deposed + murdered-the last of the Plantaganets), I thought he was made WAAAAY too sympathetic...and my prof said Elizabeth complained he wasn't sympathetic enough. In fact, she claimed to BE Richard II!!!

 

[Bada0Bing]

I just watched it. I’m not really a fan of movies like this, but I did like this one. I was surprised when I saw all of the awards this got when I was doing my research over on IMDB. Pretty impressive.


Won
Best Actress in a Leading Role
Gwyneth Paltrow


Best Actress in a Supporting Role
Judi Dench


Best Art Direction-Set Decoration
Martin Childs
Jill Quertier


Best Costume Design
Sandy Powell


Best Music, Original Musical or Comedy Score
Stephen Warbeck


Best Picture
David Parfitt
Donna Gigliotti
Harvey Weinstein
Edward Zwick
Marc Norman


Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
Marc Norman
Tom Stoppard





Nominated
Best Actor in a Supporting Role
Geoffrey Rush


Best Cinematography
Richard Greatrex


Best Director
John Madden


Best Film Editing
David Gamble


Best Makeup
Lisa Westcott
Veronica Brebner


Best Sound
Robin O'Donoghue
Dominic Lester
Peter Glossop

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I just watched it. I’m not really a fan of movies like this, but I did like this one. I was surprised when I saw all of the awards this got when I was doing my research over on IMDB. Pretty impressive.


Won
Best Actress in a Leading Role
Gwyneth Paltrow


Best Actress in a Supporting Role
Judi Dench


Best Art Direction-Set Decoration
Martin Childs
Jill Quertier


Best Costume Design
Sandy Powell


Best Music, Original Musical or Comedy Score
Stephen Warbeck


Best Picture
David Parfitt
Donna Gigliotti
Harvey Weinstein
Edward Zwick
Marc Norman


Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
Marc Norman
Tom Stoppard





Nominated
Best Actor in a Supporting Role
Geoffrey Rush


Best Cinematography
Richard Greatrex


Best Director
John Madden


Best Film Editing
David Gamble


Best Makeup
Lisa Westcott
Veronica Brebner


Best Sound
Robin O'Donoghue
Dominic Lester
Peter Glossop

The fact that it robbed Saving Private Ryan for best picture still irks me.

 

[Bada0Bing]

The fact that it robbed Saving Private Ryan for best picture still irks me.

Hear hear!

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I thought that was a much bigger upset than Crash last year.

 

[AZZenny]

I LOVE this movie. LOVE it! It is such a literate, witty, sexy, romantic, tragic, beautifully played film. I've watched it half a dozen times, and each time pick up a new pun or historical in-joke. I think William would be pleased.

Private Ryan was fine, but it was so totally Spielberg. Shakespeare in Love was unique.

 

[thirty-two]

My old roomate loved this movie and would always want me to watch it. The one time I said yes, I fell asleep cuz I was so bored.

Someday I will try again!

 

[Chaplin]

I LOVE this movie. LOVE it! It is such a literate, witty, sexy, romantic, tragic, beautifully played film. I've watched it half a dozen times, and each time pick up a new pun or historical in-joke. I think William would be pleased.

Private Ryan was fine, but it was so totally Spielberg. Shakespeare in Love was unique.

Agree with the first part, don't really agree with the 2nd part. Although I think that Saving Private Ryan is a great film (not as great as many other Spielberg films, including Raiders of the Lost Ark, Close Encounters and definitely Schindler's List), I don't think it was as big an upset. I would say that Life is Beautiful and Elizabeth (my pick for Best Picture that year) were on par with Saving Private Ryan. I would say that for that year (including the 5th nominee, Thin Red Line), that was a pretty even category. No drop-dead spectacular movie, but certainly no duds either. That's why I don't think SiL winning was quite an upset. (This year was another matter, where my pick (Munich) lost, and my 2nd pick, and the popular pick (Brokeback Mountain) also lost)

Now, Best Actress is another story. Gwyneth (the winner) was good in Shakespeare in Love, but its hard to find an actress' performance much better than Cate in Elizabeth. She was spectacular.