So I knew I wasn't going to love Shakespeare in Love (the whole Harvey Weinstein connection soured me), but I had no idea how much I would actively dislike the film. My dislike isn't due to the acting; they were fine, even quite good at times. And my dislike isn't due to the genre; I find historical fiction enjoyable when done well. That's where the issue lies...when done well.
First, the historical aspect of the film. The way plays were rehearsed (not three weeks) is wrong. And Shakespeare writing the play and giving the actors the full script? Wrong. Christopher Marlowe dying because of something Shakespeare did? Wrong again. Marlowe was accused of being an atheist. That was far more likely to cause his death than Shakespeare lying and saying he was Marlowe when courting a noble woman. Typically I don't mind if screenwriters alter history to fit a narrative, but in this case I've learned too much about the time period to let these changes slide. Plus, a lot of the film just seemed stupid. The whole star-crossed lovers in real life plotline didn't work for me. Of all of Shakespeare's plays, the one I like the least is Romeo and Juliet. Teaching the play is great because the text is easier to understand than his other works and high schoolers like the concept of forbidden love. But I didn't like the play when I was a freshman in high school, and even after seeing two live productions and watching film versions (the Zeffirelli one and the Lurhmann one), I still don't like Romeo and Juliet. Shakespeare in Love uses that play as its foundation for the love story. Really, the film had no hope of me liking it.
In thinking about the film as an Academy Award winner, I know it didn't receive those awards based on merit. It all came down to a campaign that knocked out the movie that has had far more lasting impact: Saving Private Ryan. At least in this case history shows us which film really influenced our culture and society. Maybe we can send Steven Spielberg a late Oscar?
No comments:
Post a Comment