This is the text-only version of the feature. For the full feature, complete with links and graphics, go to:

http://historymedren.about.com/library/weekly/aa011099.htm

Mad about the Bard

by Melissa Snell

Dateline: 01/10/99

Oh, blessed, blessed night, I am afeard.
Being in night, all this is but a dream,
Too flattering-sweet to be substantial.

Rome and Juliet
Act II, Scene II

Recently, two films set in Elizabethan England have made their way to the theaters, and since my love for movies rivals my passion for history, I made a point of seeing both. Unfortunately, Elizabeth was plagued with inaccuracies large and small which, I admit, colored my opinion of the movie as a whole.

I will not share my thoughts on its value as film here, as I have become a harsh critic and I don't want to prejudice anyone. However, if you choose to see the film, keep in mind that very little on the screen actually happened in the manner in which it is portrayed. And after you watch it, be sure to check out the websites and books listed at the Liz Quiz in order to get a handle on the real Queen Elizabeth I.

As for Shakespeare in Love, I can say what I think in two words:

See it.

It's true that this delightful film is wholly fiction, and it, too, has historical inaccuracies. Why, then, do I recommend it so heartily? Perhaps it is because Shakespeare in Love makes no pretense to history. Through the deliberate use of amusing anachronisms (a mug bearing the inscription, "A present from Stratford-on-Avon" rests on the playwright's desk), the point is made with a sly grin: this is a fable, a fantasy. This didn't really happen. But oh, don't you wish it did?

The film-makers are aided by the fact that so little is really known about Shakespeare's life. (In fact, a controversy persists over who actually wrote the corpus of works attributed to him.) In addition to a span of seven years in which virtually nothing is known of his activities, much of his early years in the London drama milieu are sketchy at best. In this wide-open framework the director, John Madden, and the writers, Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard, were free to spin any tale they chose. Yet the story they weave -- which they do with brilliant dialogue and charming characterizations -- is not a preposterous piece of whimsy but a plausible yarn, richly textured with humor, pathos, and romance.

Even as it assures the audience of its status as fable, Shakespeare in Love offers realistic Elizabethan settings and costumes and makes use of actual historical events: the playhouses are closed due to a plague; young Christopher Marlowe (later killed in a tavern) is a notable success while Shakespeare is only just gaining recognition. A palatable form of Elizabethan English -- comprehensible to modern ears yet close to that actually spoken in the sixteenth century -- draws us neatly into the past.

And the plot is something, well, right out of Shakespeare.

By now you probably know the premise: at a time when females are forbidden to take the stage, the beautiful Lady Viola passes herself off as a young man so that she may act. Will Shakespeare, who casts her alter ego in his latest play, discovers her secret, and they fall madly in love. But status and society work to keep them apart. As this sexy, funny and touching affair progresses, Will invests his own emotions and experiences into the play he is writing, a true masterpiece whose title isn't settled until the production is nearly ready for the stage.

The performances are all wonderful. Gwyneth Paltrow is vibrant as Viola and wholly believable as the "actor," Thomas Kent. Joseph Fiennes brings Shakespeare to life with such energy and flair that I had no trouble accepting him as a man of whom I, and I'm sure many others, have strong preconceptions. Ben Affleck shines as actor Ned Alleyn and Geoffrey Rush steals scenes right and left as the bumbling, desperate producer Henslowe. And in three short sequences Judi Dench brings Queen Elizabeth so forcefully to the screen that you'll be as captivated by her presence as you would be by Gloriana herself.

You'll see numerous elements so favored by Will in many of his plays: star-crossed love, fencing, dreadful puns, cross-dressing, a play-within-a-play, even a ghost -- well, sort of. And the complex interweaving of Shakespearean dialogue with events on the screen is superbly achieved. Yet Shakespeare in Love is not an adaptation or even an amalgamation of the Bard's works, nor is it merely a tribute to the immortal playwright. Rather, it is an original creation infused with the shimmering spirit of drama -- the kind of drama that was born in the sixteenth century and has survived, evolved, and flourished to this day.

For although the social commentary, the high concepts, and the splendid poetry are all part of what makes Shakespeare great, his immortality lies not in these aspects of his art. It lies in the eternal way he touched the human heart, and inspired other writers to do the same. Shakespeare in Love reminds us of this by touching our hearts in the finest Shakespearean tradition, making us all just a little mad about the Bard.

For useful links and a hyperlinked book list, please return to the regular feature.

Mad about the Bard is copyright © 1999 Melissa Snell and The Mining Co. Permission is granted to reproduce this review for personal or classroom use only, provided that the URL below is included. For reprint permission, please contact Melissa Snell.

The URL for this feature is:
http://historymedren.about.com/library/weekly/aa011099.htm

The URL for the Home Page of the Medieval History site is:
http://historymedren.about.com/