Romance and Genius...

Rating: 8/10 (22 November 2016)

"Shakespeare in Love" should have been cinema's ultimate homage to William Shakespeare, not through an umpteenth adaptation, or adaptation's adaptation, to one of his iconic plays, but by putting the iconic playwright within the framework of an original movie plot; original in the sense that it turns him into the subject of a real-life yet loosely fictionalized biopic, a romantic comedy and something of an educational film. We learn a lot throughout John Madden's film, about stage, art, business, royalty and naturally, the genius of Shakespeare, the man who was put in the top 10 of the most influential people of the last millennium, the most highly ranking artist, above Mozart and the Beatles.
I hate to use the word 'multi-layered' because it makes a movie sound like architectural work instead of than something being guided by genuine inspiration, but hey, if anything Madden's film proves is that even the greatest masterpieces were not made by a snap of a finger and were build upon many other factors than inspiration. Like "Romeo and Juliet", "Shakespeare in Love" is a multi-layered accomplishment, a work of art that can be enjoyed on many levels, confidently overlapping, but always with romance at the core. If the film's story isn't likely to leap over the centuries like "Romeo and Juliet", it doesn't matter; Will and Viola aren't supposed to steal Romeo and Juliet's thunder but to incarnate the seminal inspiration to the iconic couple. That's their power.
Sadly, for all the reasons that can make "Shakespeare in Love", a great journey into love, passion and an immersion in the world and business of theater at the dawn of Queen Elizabeth's reign, the film is remembered as one of the worst Best Picture winners, the one that dared to steal "Saving Private Ryan"s golden statuette at the 1999 Oscars. Spielberg's war movie was an instant classic, a film that immediately topped all the 'Great Films' list, and to many users and even official websites, it is now an objective truth that "Shakespeare in Love" didn't deserve the Oscar. And instead of being a love story about a love story, the film had become a trigger to an enduring hate story with the Internet users. Hated and even loved for the wrong reasons, some would love it just because they hated "Saving Private Ryan" with passion, which doesn't say much about both films anyway. Now, where do I stand?
For me, "Shakespeare in Love" isn't just one of these conventional costume dramas with sword fights, antechambers' plotting and feather-writing, and this comes from someone who loved the Best Picture co-nominee "Elizabeth". The film carries a sort of self-referential wit, as if it was conscious on its own craziness, it starts with the working title of the classic pay "Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter", it's funny but it feels real. I mean, did you know that Walt Disney intended to call Mickey, Mortimer Mouse? The process of the creation of the play and how it is shaped by the real life events in the film is the kind of delights I love to see in a film, true or not. The part where Ben Affleck's character suggests Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) to keep the title "Romeo and Juliet" had the same resonance than that moment in "The Social Network" when Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) tells Zuckerberg (Jess Eisenberg) to remove the "The" from "The Facebook" or when Zuckerberg says no one can't wear a sign indicating if he's single or engaged, hence coming with one of his most ingenuous ideas.
That's the ransom of success and worldwide popularity, you can find countless inspirations for Romeo and Juliet's key scenes and I love how the two stories drive each other until the ultimate culmination. I also love how it still manages to encapsulate the conventions of its time like the forced marriage with Lord Wessex (Colin Firth), some thrilling duels, a few balcony meetings, nurses, antechambers plotting, and even the cross-dressing that prevailed in the theater at the time, and that earned Gwyneth Paltrow her Oscar. Indeed, women couldn't play in a stage, which makes you realize why comedy was the strongest suit to embody the notion of love. And the film even manages to showcase some daring anachronisms, one of my favorite being the "psychiatrist" played by Anthony Sher. In this fascinating mess, you can't tell fiction from reality and you don't really care, for the film is fun from one bit of another, and is populated by a great gallery of British actors.
Now, the real issue, is "Did it deserve the Best Picture?" well, even if I didn't give it the Oscar, "Saving Private Ryan" wouldn't be my second vote, the irony of 1998 is that it featured two costume dramas and two war movies, "Life is Beautiful" has at least the merit to tackle a very thought-provoking idea and make an enchanting fable out of tragedy. Spielberg's film works on one level, which is the terrific realism of the war battles, but that's all, if you get deeper in the plot, you can easily spot some moments where it sinks into manipulative schmaltz, where you realize that this war is between good and evil guys, while it's true that there was an evil ideology ruling the side, you can't make a war movie and imply that every soldier deserved to die, this is too dangerously simplistic. So to all those who believe "Saving Private Ryan" was the better one, I want to say why? The answers will all focus on the battles, story-wise or acting-wise, the other movies didn't deserve less.
"Shakespeare in Love" had the merit to venture in many ideas, many genres, and be enjoyable on many levels. It didn't expect to compete against Spielberg's film, it might have benefited from Weinstein's lobbying, but to hate it on this sole basis isn't the stuff being passion for movies is made on, or constructive criticism.