Review: Shakespeare in Love

Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) is struggling for material, not making his financial backer (Tom Wilkinson) particularly happy. He eventually comes up with something tentatively titled “Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate’s Daughter”. A classic in the making, of course. His insistence on a tragic love story isn’t quite what theatre owner Philip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush) wants to hear, preferring to see something more in the vein of a low comedy, and certainly not with an unhappy ending. Will sees and is instantly bewitched by Viola (Gwyneth Paltrow), who by order of the Queen (Dame Judi Dench) is betrothed to the boorish Lord Wessex (Colin Firth). Viola, as it happens, really wants to be an actor, but because the society of the time frowns on women in the theatre, she has to don a male disguise when auditioning for Will’s play. Romantic comedy nonsense ensues. Ben Affleck plays an egotistical actor, Simon Callow is essentially Lord Wessex’s henchman, Rupert Everett plays Will’s literary rival Christopher Marlowe, Imelda Staunton is Viola’s nursemaid, and Martin Clunes plays the proprietor of another theatre.

 

2016 and I’m still pissed that Gwyneth Paltrow stole Cate Blanchett’s Oscar (and if you’re into gossip, do yourself a favour and Google the story about Gwyneth and Winona Ryder about this film. Hilarious, whether true or false), but I assure you that my feelings towards this 1998 film from director John Madden (who made “Her Majesty Mrs. Brown” and not much else since) aren’t entirely as a result of that appalling miscarriage of not terribly meaningful justice. It’s just not that good of a film.

 

Scripted by Marc Norman (“Oklahoma Crude”, “Breakout”, “Cutthroat Island”) and playwright Tom Stoppard (“The Human Factor”, “Brazil”), looking back at this film almost 20 years later it’s even harder to understand what all the fuss was about than it was when I was first rather underwhelmed by it. It’s not a bad film, in fact I’m going pretty close to recommending it, but that’s not really saying much, is it? “Romeo and Juliet” moments within a film essentially about the creation of “Romeo and Juliet” is a cute idea for a film without question, but nothing substantial enough to warrant the accolades and reputation.

 

The main problem I have with the film is the miscasting of the two leads, Joseph Fiennes in particular. Sure, Ben Affleck belongs nowhere near anything with ‘Shakespeare’ in the title, but his performance is kind of amusing at times, and he at least brings energy to a film that definitely benefits from it. Joseph Fiennes gets no such kindness from me, he brings the exact opposite of energy. There’s a reason why Joseph Fiennes isn’t a star anymore, and that reason is ironically enough the film that tried to turn him into one. Or at least, his performance in it. One of the most boring actors to have ever found himself the lead in a film, it’s really hard to get into a film and a central romance when the lead actor sends you to sleep. He’s a mopey bore, and the part probably should’ve been played by Ewan McGregor, or Rupert Everett (who has a small role here). Someone with genuine charm, charisma, and likeability. Fiennes (who wasn’t much better opposite Cate in “Elizabeth” to be honest) is even less likeable than his brother Ralph, and that guy played a fucking Nazi. Gwyneth Paltrow puts on a perfectly fine English accent, but it didn’t deserve an Oscar and she doesn’t really do anything else of distinction here, either. ‘Better than Fiennes’ is about the best thing I can say for her here. I know it’s typically low Shakespearean comedy ruse stuff, but Paltrow’s inability to convince in her ruse as a man kills the entire central romance for me, alongside Fiennes’ suckage. Even in a comedy, you’ve at least got to believe in the film’s reality, and this film’s subsequent quick dismissal of the angle and admittance of how stupid Fiennes’ character is, is no excuse. In fact, I think the ruse is even poorer than the filmmakers think it is, which makes it all worse.

 

On the plus side, there’s some clever name-dropping from Shakespeare and historical references throughout the film. We even get a ball sequence that presumably deliberately calls back to the definitive screen version of “Romeo and Juliet” (1968), followed by a balcony scene that all but confirms the influence. Imelda Staunton, meanwhile is absolutely perfect as the Nursemaid, clearly modelled after Pat Heywood in the aforementioned film. I liked all of that, even if the film’s own romance doesn’t deserve to be used in the same sentence as that timeless tragic romance. The entire supporting cast is actually pretty good, I must say. I’m not entirely certain Dame Judi Dench deserved an Oscar for 6 minutes or so of on-screen work, but if anyone can pack an award-worthy performance into 6 minutes, it’s probably Dame Judi Dench. Geoffrey Rush, meanwhile, gives the lowest of low comedy performances, and in this instance that’s entirely appropriate. He pretty much runs off with the whole film and deservingly earned an Oscar nomination. Also scoring well is Colin Firth in one of his better against-type turns as a frankly boring prick of a human being (He normally plays boring nice guys). It’s a shame Simon Callow doesn’t get much to do, but Tom Wilkinson and the always fine Martin Clunes are pretty well-served here.

 

A great idea for a film that sadly does not blossom into a great film. It’s a cute little film, the supporting cast is terrific, but with a black hole at its centre the returns were always going to be diminishing. Paltrow and particularly Fiennes just don’t work, and ultimately neither does the film quite work. Supremely overrated, this one’s OK at best, and probably one of the weaker Best Picture winners at the Oscars you’ll ever see.

 

Rating: C+