Review of Shakespeare in Love (1998) by Jennetp — 20 Mar 2011

I'm not usually one to fault a film for historical inaccuracy, but this one went too far--and then failed to compensate with a decent story. I disagree with those who say knowing Shakespeare adds to a viewer's enjoyment, unless what is known is a play or two and some half-remembered facts about Elizabethan London.

Knowing a lot about Renaissance drama just makes the film galling, as real historical figures are wrenched from their actual lives and made to serve a contrived and fantastical plot. I almost walked out when John Webster, who would soon be writing complex, intellectual plays, was depicted as a child torturing rats and informing on Shakespeare's company, but that was just one of many instances.

As for the love story and its theatrical issue, both were the height of silliness. I'm not saying it wasn't possible for a woman to cross-dress in early modern England; it happened. But Gwyneth Paltrow in a tiny fake moustache is about as masculine as a troupe of ballerinas at a quilting bee, so believing that everyone was fooled requires some serious IQ-shaving.

I normally like Paltrow, but this film lowered my opinion of her acting chops. Then there's the idea that Shakespeare was blocked and needed experience to write from. Leaving aside the ample evidence that the playwright may have been the least blocked writer who ever lived, he always used other texts as the basis for his plays.

I hope we don't get a sequel called "Shakespeare in a Jealous Rage" that shows him killing his wife so he can write Othello. On the plus side, the supporting cast, sets, and costumes are excellent.

The film gets most of the little stuff right, oddly enough; would it had lavished the same care on the big stuff.