1998: "Shakespeare in Love" dir. John Madden
A modern theatrical embodiment of William Shakespeare's disrespect for historical accuracy.
Metacritic Score: 87/100
IMDB User Rating: 7.1/10
My Rating: 3.5/5 stars
Both within its plot and in real life, John Madden’s Shakespeare in Love (1998) is chock-full of surprises. Nominated alongside Steven Spielberg’s critically acclaimed war movie Saving Private Ryan, Shakespeare in Love’s win was a major award upset. Nominated for 13 Academy Awards that year and having won seven of these (being for Best Picture, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress, Best Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, and Best Original Musical or Comedy Score), the film was the subject of much controversy and even still is discussed as something of a sellout in more recent years.
Of its seven awards, I think it unquestionably deserved Best Costume Design, if every other win was rather questionable in my opinion considering the other great films of that year (even among the other period piece of that year, Elizabeth dir. Shekhar Kapur). The period accurate dress is absolutely beautiful, with lavish dresses and grandiose skirts (for both women and men playing women on the stage), and Gwyneth Paltrow’s wigs as Viola de Lesseps cross-dressing as a man called Thomas Kent appear seamless, really making the film visually stunning.
This being addressed, I thought the film was fine. The plot follows William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes)’s trials and tribulations in crafting “Romeo and Juliet” (originally titled “Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate’s Daughter”, a fact of fiction proposed in the film), as he ultimately falls into his own love story much akin to “Romeo and Juliet” itself. A rich girl, Viola de Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow) prefers the plays of Shakespeare to those of opposing playwright, Christopher Marlowe (Rupert Everett). She cross-dresses as a man called Thomas Kent—it was illegal for women to be in theatre at this time—and auditions for Shakespeare’s upcoming play in an extravagant scheme to be in touch with him. He is stunned by Kent’s acting, and vies to find him to be his lead. Simultaneously, he meets Viola at a ball and falls for her, despite her betrothment to the Earl of Wessex. He eventually surmises that the two are one, and schemes to run away with Viola, though by the end she must move with Wessex and he must be alone, the lovers remaining “star-cross’d” just as Romeo and Juliet.
The film is laden with many references to Shakespeare’s plays as well as his personal life. In the context of his plays, we see an exact recreation of the “Romeo and Juliet” balcony scene between William and Viola; William throwing a piece of paper at a skull a la “Hamlet”, Wessex believing William to be the ghost of Christopher Marlowe (who he had killed, as Shakespeare gave Marlowe’s name as his own to save his own alibi) like “Macbeth”; a swordfight between William and Wessex just like between Tybalt and Mercutio in “Romeo and Juliet”. Shakespeare giving Marlowe as a fake name serves as a possible explanation for the mysterious murder of Marlowe in real life. Much of the film also alludes to things to be believed about Shakespeare: scenes of him undressing Kent (who we know to really be Viola) alludes to his alleged bisexuality gleaned from the content of his Sonnets.
The film uses English more appropriate to the 1890s than the 1590s, and Wessex talks of moving to the American colonies which would not even be formed for a few decades later. Of course, William Shakespeare cared not for historical accuracy whatsoever—in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, he talks of nunneries in England despite it being dated in ancient Greek-era Athens, and uses Londoner slang of the time. Shakespeare in Love could ergo be explained away as an homage to the practices of Shakespeare, but I instead find that it comes off as lazy, almost like an unresearched fanfiction as opposed to a historical comedy.
I do understand that renditions of Shakespeare’s plays have become so tired over the last 400+ years that they must be modernized and individualized somehow. For example, the BBC’s 2016 rendition of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” depicts the Athenians as Nazis instead—another weird choice, but such is Shakespeare. However, Shakespeare in Love provides nothing foundationally interesting nor unique that makes me feel as though it should be revered as a classic in the 21st century, nor that it should even have won Best Picture. As a modern-day movie-goer, I find that in my experience audiences prefer a more historically accurate fictitious period piece; please see audience reactions to any of the films by the illustrious Robert Eggers, like his 2024 Nosferatu, or Greta Gerwig’s 2019 Little Women, if you find this untrue. In comparison to these more modern masterpieces, Shakespeare in Love can get annoying with its inaccuracy and be a chore to finish, if you don’t find the gorgeous costuming and random appearance of Ben Affleck all that alluring.
P.S.: if you’d like, I do short-form reviews on all films I watch on my Letterboxd profile. Sometimes they’re silly, but other times I am so captivated by films that are not on this list that I have to review them on the spot! Please feel free to message me with any films you’d like me to give my insight on :).
