More talent than you can shake a... spear at

Rating: 10/10 (10 September 2010)

Shakespeare In Love is, on one hand, a captivatingly magical film and, on the other, a spectacularly manoeuvred success that it would have been tragically easy to screw up. After all, to bring this wickedly funny, self-referential concept to the screen really was the biggest risk of any film of '98, even more so than the mixture of World War II with Roberto Benigni's farcical antics in Life Is Beautiful.
Such daring stems from the fact – one which the producers at Miramax must have been painfully aware of – that one misstep in any sense would have resulted in an absolute ruin of a film, most pertinently in regard to the cast. The wrong actors would have made this less of a playful exercise in fact vs. versus fiction and more of an agonising presentation of B-grade inventiveness. As is, Shakespeare's casting is terrific in the process of placing the right actor in the right part:
Fiennes as the eponymous literary icon remains one of the most watched and simultaneously unacknowledged performances both of his career and of the genre. His most renowned leading role plays like an extension to his supporting character in Elizabeth as Robert Dudley, the Queen's lover; the same poetic charisma is present, but the development through more screen time is very rewarding, allowing the viewer to observe his newfound maturity and at the same time an untouchable light-heartedness and humour that ultimately makes this his most likable film persona yet.
Paltrow likewise is great, as worthy of her Best Actress win as front-runner Cate Blanchett, despite subsequent criticisms. Her romantic and almost childish – in the best possible way – disposition perfectly suits the inspired and unexpectedly insightful speeches that speak of longing for love in such simple terms, phrased so plainly as it never has been before (credit where credit's due to the imaginative vivacity of writing duo Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard, whose win for Best Original Screenplay was as much attributed to these intimate moments as any other part of the film). Viola's want to have love in her life and her eloquent expression of its powerful influence is so basic and yet believable, as is her portrayal of a boy, Thomas Kent, a masculine subterfuge that is obvious to the audience but it is not a stretch to imagine that Will and the other characters would be fooled by Viola's con.
Accurate casting reverberates in the supporting players, starting with Geoffrey Rush's skittishly anxious nuisance Philip Henslowe, the primary comic relief to the film and customary idiot, a presence that seems an homage to one of Shakespeare's own creations used to serve the needs of the lowly underlings in the audience, though in a cleverer guise. Any who doubt Rush's credibility as an actor of versatility need simply watch Elizabeth and Shakespeare In Love, witnessing in awe the breadth of his outstanding abilities, ranging from the depth of his dramatic flare to the aptness of his droll obnoxiousness.
Affleck as Ned, leader of acting troupe the Admiral's Men, has only ever been as engaging once before in Good Will Hunting and is even more fun to watch than his sadistic fallen angel in Dogma a year later. The endearing Tom Wilkinson, a crowd-pleaser whose name is not always as well remembered as his familiar face, brilliantly displays the aura of a hospitable medieval gangster whilst also successfully treading the grounds of a theatre appreciator, enthusiastic drunk and anxious player.
British icon Judi Dench, who was virtually unheard of in the US until her Best Supporting Actress win for Shakespeare, does not just steal scenes as the treasured Queen Elizabeth, but commands them; hell, in her total 15 minutes on screen she absolutely dominates every second! In other circumstances, such a description would pertain fittingly to self- indulgence, but there is something so eerily subtle about Dench's performance, which is not so much replication as incarnation. Afterwards, there is little doubt that the true Virgin Queen would have incurred the exact same cautious atmosphere. So much can be praised about Dench's presence: she is uncompromisingly curt and very impressed with her own wit; her costume – one of Sandy Powell's award-winning creations – is incredibly detailed, so loud that it becomes its own character trait; finally, she has a jaded though not entirely humourless impatience, as when she cannot wait any longer for one of her guards to shroud a muddy puddle and so trudges bitterly through it, simply stating, "Too late, tooo late."
Location is undoubtedly a key quality of this film, with the England of Shakespeare presenting itself as a much lighter and cajoling setting, full of life and excitement. The decoration of the waterside locales on the Thames, as well as the Thames itself with many small rowboats, is also a successful campaign. The true exquisiteness of this background, however, becomes clear at twilight: as night descends upon central London, this river becomes a vibrant bed of fire, the streets themselves an intricate, enchanting maze; every corner longs to be explored and the viewer can't help but ponder on the surprises lurking behind every turn. Shakespeare by candlelight is enlivened further by Stephen Warbeck's touching and undeniably nostalgic score.
And speaking of music, the spectacularly potent symphony crescendo that rises as the film's theatre audience applaud Will and Viola's performance of Romeo and Juliet is the greatest and most suitable composition of recent memory.
With an accurate balance in style, humour and compassion, to watch Shakespeare is to be in state of constant jovial enjoyment, with the mounting knowledge that the film will be watched more than once, if only just to reaffirm how marvellous it is when everything goes right, when it all could have gone sooo wrong.