Go hear a well-written movie

Rating: 9/10 (3 March 1999)

Shakespeare in Love forces me to think back to a conversation the late Gene Siskel and his comrade Roger Ebert had on their show one day about the nature of movies, and the idea that encompasses them. A paraphrased Ebert argued in favor of black and white films because they enhance the whole idea that (paraphrased) "We, the audience, are taken into a room where the lights dim and for two plus hours we are taken into a dreamy almost surreal world." And in my mind, Shakespeare in Love perfects this, in accomplishing this very objective, as Siskel and Ebert believed, of movies as works of art.
The film itself was a glorious story told with such brilliance and wit that made it very surreal and dreamy. And much like a good dream that one hates to wake up from, I found myself ready and willing to sit for hours more as Viola made her way across the sand in the end of the movie.
There was a tremendous amount working in this film, most of which I credit to the writing. The parallel of what was going on in the film, with what was going on in the play, was so very Shakespearean. The use of plays within plays is one of Shakespeare's favorite devices, and Stoppard used it with such a brilliance as we the audience watched the development of Twelfth Night-like plot twists on screen, as the film actors, played actors, who acted out Romeo and Juliet on their stage. Anyone who knows Shakespeare, surely understands how completely awesome this writing is.
As for some of the technical aspects of the film... I did not much care for some of the jump cutting that John Madden used in some of the scenes (i.e. dance scene between Will and Viola) which I am left to assume his purpose in doing so was to show the instant chemistry between the two lovers. Not really necessary in my mind and frankly, I found it jarring, for more often than not, it (the camera) moved in the opposite direction that the actors danced in, indicating confusion, not synchronization between the two.
Which brings me to my final point, that being the under-appreciation of writers in Hollywood. Newsweek recently published an interview with Stoppard, Begnini, Beatty (Ha!) and two other screenwriters, whose names have escaped me. The article only reinforced my belief about the necessity of good writers in Hollywood and the unfortunate lack of respect that they get. After reading some of the critical reviews I am glad to see that Tom Stoppard (who I read somewhere as being, "The only man smart enough to put Shakespeare's words in his mouth.") is receiving at least some of the credit he deserves. Without knowing how much Marc Normand helped Stoppard, it is difficult for me to either exclude him or give him the same credit as Stoppard for he has neither a "Rosencrantz" nor a "Guildenstern" in his filmography. (A small plug for those of you who haven't seen another of Stoppard's wonderfully written films, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, which I believe he also directed). I will reside to the fact that the film was well directed, but I can only commend Madden half-heartedly, for most of his success, I believe, comes about as a result of his standing on the shoulders of others (i.e. Judi Dench in Mrs. Brown). Personally, I think there are a number of directors who would have done a fine job working with the writers to bring the story to the screen. Perhaps there will come a day when the proper person (Stoppard) will get the majority of the credit regarding the genius of a film like Shakespeare in Love, rather than simply giving it to the default recipient, the director. Hopefully on Oscar night, Stoppard will get his Oscar, and perhaps one for Madden as well, for the film is nothing shy of Oscar worthy.