"SHAKESPEARE IN LUST" would have been a more appropriate title...

Rating: 4/10 (20 October 1999)

"Playwrites teach us nothing of love" says Queen Elizabeth in this film. She might as well add "either do screenwriters...."
"Shakespeare in Love" has many qualities that make it a better than average film. The sets are excellent, the costumes are beautiful, and the acting,for the most part, was first rate. The script is witty, and filled with cute, little "inside jokes" for those familiar with the plays and literature of Elizabethan England.
That being said, in my opinion there are some serious flaws, which cause it to be quite a bit inferior to other films nominated for the 98 Oscars. Yet it is obvious that what I consider to be "flaws," Hollywood considers "virtues." My review is for those who find this film to be less than virtuous.
The only thing this film has in common with the historical Shakespeare is the name "Shakespeare." This is a highly fictionalized account of his life; however, I do not consider this a flaw. It is obvious that the writers are using Shakespeare as a vehicle to create a parable of the Hollywood film industry, complete with sex, money and psychoanalysts. The use of Shakespeare for this end is actually quite clever. In this day and age, where biographers feel free to inject themselves as a fictional character into the "historical" biographies they write, then this fictionalization of Shakespeare is par for the course. The screenwriters also are interested in presenting a possible motivation for Shakespeare's writing of "Romeo and Juliet:" Shakespeare was madly in love at the time. Yet it is in the handling of the "love" story that I've encountered the film's most serious flaw.
The film's two lead characters; "Shakespeare" played by Joe Fiennes and "Viola" played be Gwyneth Paltrow; have a mutual "love-at-first-sight" attraction to each another. This attraction is quickly followed up by consummation in Viola's bedroom - an activity in which the two of them engage in rather frequently throughout the course of the film. Often they recite lines from "Romeo and Juliet" to each other while copulating.
About midway through the film, Queen Elizabeth (Judi Dench) states "Playwrites teach us nothing of love; they make it pretty, they make it comical or they make it lust - they cannot make it true." This piece of dialogue is the hinge upon which this whole film turns - and with it a wager is struck in response to the queen's query: "Can a play show us the very truth and nature in love?"
Of course a play can show us the very truth and nature in love - hence the film's thesis: the motivation behind Shakespeare's writing of "Romeo and Juliet!" Unfortunately, the film attempts, by association, to take that challenge upon itself as well. In my opinion, it fails miserably. This is just another example of a pretty, comical, and lusty Hollywood film - nothing more. I did not come away with an enlightened viewpoint of love and truth - rather I thought it more of a highbrow pseudo porn flick. Sorry - two lovers reciting Shakespeare to each other while doing the horizontal bop does not bring clarity to the meaning of "love" to this reviewer.
As I stated earlier, this is not an Oscar caliber film, and didn't even deserve the nomination. All the other nominated films were far more ambitious and told much more compelling stories. So why then DID this film get nominated - let alone win best picture???
Well, one has to keep in perspective the two films before it that have won Oscars - "The English Patient" and "Titanic." "Shakespeare in Love" kept lockstep with the philosophical underpinnings of those two films, and by towing the party line, endeared itself to the Hollywood elite who votes for these things.
"The English Patient", "Titanic", and "Shakespeare in Love" all deal with a woman either promised to or married to a man who they either despise or find less than desirable. Then comes along the "love of their lives," and, despite the woman's engagement/marriage convenant, they go off and embrace their "forbidden love." Hence we are subtlety told that marriage/engagement is an evil that keeps one from finding true happiness. In order for these films to work, they have to resort to times and places where woman had much less freedom of choice than they do today. But the underlying message remains the same for all three.
In Hollywood USA, marriage is probably viewed in that way by many involved in the entertainment industry: a sort of ancient, masochistic custom that has outlived its usefulness. Any film that portrays marriage as an obstacle rather than a blessing finds quite a receptive audience amongst the moral relativists who make up the film industry. (One wonders why many entertainers even bother with marriage at all.
Keeping this in mind, one sees how the other films could not possibly win.
"Elizabeth" shows the process by which QE1 becomes the "virgin queen." If there's any subject that could be considered taboo in Hollywood, then virginity has to be it. Hence, this film didn't have a chance.
`Saving Private Ryan' was a throwback to old fashioned ideas like "duty,' "honor," and worst of all, "self-sacrifice" - none of which play that well in modern day Southern California (except when the sacrifice of self is used for the preservation of the "forbidden love...") "The Thin Red Line" - makes the terrible error of showing how one's adultery can have a rather negative impact on the adulterer's spouse - a concept unheard of in the land of self-indulgence without consequences. And don't even get me started on "Life is Beautiful...."
If you think that "Shakespeare in Love" WAS the best film of '98, then I have a few others for you to try on for size: "Savior," "Pi," "Rushmore" and "Dark City." They all are far more compelling than SIL could ever hope to be.