(Amazon UK link) |
The film is set in the late 1590s, in a realistic-looking London, full of commerce, noise and general hubbub. We learn that there are two theatres, one doing fairly well, the other one in dire straits. The owner of the second theatre is being tortured by his creditors as he is unable to pay them the vast sum of twelve pounds… however he promises them a new play by the upcoming young genius Shakespeare, and they agree to give him more time.
Shakespeare, meanwhile, is supposedly working on his play ‘Romeo and Ethel the Pirate’s Daughter’, but is in despair as the words won’t come. He believes he needs a new muse, and it’s clear that he’s a serial womaniser, despite being married to Anne Hathaway, who is still in Stratford. We weren’t at all sure how much of this film was historically realistic and how much was fictional; the ‘extra’ that we watched afterwards explained that we know very little about Shakespeare himself, but that historical details (such as the information about theatres, and some of the minor characters) are accurate. The blend works brilliantly.
It’s quite a raunchy story, as Will meets and falls for the beautiful Lady Viola de Lesseps (Gwynneth Paltrow). She lives in a class and culture that expects arranged marriages, and her parents have decided that she should marry Lord Wessex (Colin Firth) despite him being rather overbearing and arrogant.
Viola is quite a rebel, and sometimes dresses up as a boy, giving herself the name of Thomas Kent, so she can get out of the house without a chaperone. She has an old nurse who loves her (Imelda Staunton) and helps her in this disguise. Viola loves the theatre and particularly the plays she has seen by Shakespeare…so she decides to audition for a part in the new play. Will, fired up by having met Viola, writes the first act of what will eventually be Romeo and Juliet, and engages ‘Thomas Kent’ as Romeo.
There’s some humour in this film, which we both appreciated; it’s not laugh-aloud funny, but there are some ironies and a few good one-liners. There’s also the situational humour in that nobody - including Will at first - realises that ‘Thomas’ is in fact a woman despite the fact that it seems very obvious. However the idea of a woman on the stage is so shocking that perhaps it wouldn't have occurred to anyone.
I thought the blend of reality and fiction was extremely well done. The writing of Romeo and Juliet, which goes through several adjustments, is entirely believable. Possibly my favourite character was Queen Elizabeth I, brilliantly portrayed by Dame Judi Dench. Apparently the real Queen Bess was a huge fan of theatre, despite some of the London leaders wanting them closed down. This comes through in the movie, and there’s a wonderful blend of arrogance and humour in the way the Queen is portrayed.
The film is rated 15, which I think is correct. There’s not much bad language; expletives are mostly very mild. There’s also not much real violence; the most disturbing scene was the first one, and that was quite brief. There’s plenty of stage violence, but that has some humour and is not too gory. But the whole film is about an adulterous affair, and there are several obviously sexual scenes. There are flashes of partial nudity and some scenes where little is left to the imagination, although I suppose a couple of them were meant to be humorous.
‘Shakespeare in Love’ won several awards, unsurprisingly; overall it’s an excellent film, and I would recommend it to anyone - adults or older teens - wanting to get an idea of what the young William Shakespeare and his daily life might have been like.
No comments:
Post a Comment