MUBI

(Originally written January 25, 2008)

“Playwrights teach us nothing about love. They make it pretty, they make it comical, or they make it lust, but they cannot make it true.”

What stops Forrest Gump from being the masterpiece it is thought to be are the cute references, its reliance on American history in a way that makes for good quick jokes but eventually gets tired. It attempts to cleverly explain something we’re familiar with using fiction. Shakespeare in Love also suffers from this problem, but the issue here is more fatal. There are references to the work and context of William Shakespeare, but the parallels between the fictional story and the reality of Shakespeare are forced. What we’re then left with is a mediocre love story, one with its moments but ultimately nothing interesting and one that falls victim to the very problems pointed out by Queen Elizabeth in the previously mentioned quote.

Shakespeare’s work was great not because of the stories but because of how the stories were told. They were exercises in timing and language, and this film only takes the superficial elements from Shakespeare and conveniently polishes it for Hollywood’s purposes. The (over)use of music in this film helps to create emotion when there’s nothing really of substance in the first place. The glossing power of the romance and music is exemplified in a scene in which William Shakespeare and Viola, then dressed as Thomas Kant, are kissing backstage during a rehearsal. The audience is supposed to buy into their love by ignoring the homoerotic tensions in this scene. The music is leading us to ignore that Shakespeare is not just kissing a woman.; he’s kissing a woman dressed as a man.

The writers also found cheap manipulative devices necessary for this story. For the entire film, the actor who ends up performing the prologue for Romeo and Juliet has a vicious stutter, but he miraculously overcomes his problem just in time for the opening performance of the play. Even more convenient is the fact that the actor meant to play Juliet becomes too nervous to play the role, but Viola is in the theatre just in time to save the play. The climax sequence, although powerful, is unconvincingly executed. Everything turns out so neatly to find its natural Hollywood ending.

What I find ironic is the fact that this film uses Romeo and Juliet as a backbone for the love story of this film, but the original play itself in the context of today’s society comes across not as a great love story but the story of two naïve teenagers infatuated with each other. In the same way, this film never gives us any reason to believe Shakespeare and Viola are genuinely in love with each other. Their love comes across as pretty because of the Hollywood clichés, comical because of the clever references, and lust because of the romance being limited to poetry and sex.

This may have been the first comedy since Annie Hall to win Best Picture, and what a shame. It lacks the sophistication and bravery of Woody Allen’s 1977 masterpiece. Comedy has become cute and entertaining instead of intelligent and biting in its ability to point out the absurdities of life. While we’re looking at Shakespeare in Love in the context of the Best Picture canon, it’s also interesting to look at the film compared to Amadeus, another film which gives an alternate view of a world-renowned genius. Forman’s dark, moody film gives us an alternative perspective on Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart while Shakespeare is merely used as the context for just another Hollywood romance. Shakespeare for the masses, and everyone’s buying.