Marc Norman is credited as a co-author of this screenplay, but it feels like Tom Stoppard's worki.e. it's rich, astonishingly rich, with at least four different interacting levels all going on at the same time.
#1: Most ostensibly, it's a romanticized biography of the early turning point in Shakespeare's careerthe writing of his first indisputably great play (Romeo and Juliet), the passing of the theatrical torch from Christopher Marlowe to him, and his joining of the Chamberlain's Men, which cost him 50 pounds (an enormous figure in those days). Lots of known facts are changed, much is invented, but the overall sense is pretty reasonableand about as accurate as the typical film biography.
#2: It's a delightful fiction about a romance between Will Shakespeare and the wealthy Viola de Lessups, who is engaged to be married to the haughty but impoverished Lord Wessexa romance that inspires him to write Romeo and Juliet, largely because it plays out as a kind of mirror of that very play. Or a pre-mirror, since it isn't written yet. The ball, the balcony, the duel, the suitor, the nurse, the three appearances of the Prince of Verona (i.e. Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth)...it's all there. One of the joys for the audience who knows the play is recognizing all the anticipations embedded in the filmplus a few from other plays (like Banquo's ghost) for good measure.
#3: The film delivers in the most persuasive possible way a strong critical reading of the play Romeo and Juliet. It has been observed by many critics that this play begins as a traditional comedy, with all the stock figures and stereotypes, but halfway through (exactly halfway!) with the deaths of Mercutio and Tybalt, it turns into a tragedy, and then systematically reinterprets all the comedic scenes and characters of the first half in this newly tragic light. Stoppard's story of the writing of the play begins with Will, ecstatic with love, finally getting started on the comedy he's been promising his producer...but as the love affair with Viola darkens, his ability to sustain the comic mood disappears. At exactly the halfway point of the film, he wakes next to Viola and announces that "I found something in my sleep. It's not a comedy I'm writing any more, it's a tragedy!"
#4: Finally, this is a tribute to the joys of the theatreto acting, to writing, to producing, to simply hanging around getting enchanted by it all. A central character here is Mr. Fennyman (Tom Wilkinson), who begins as a heartless money-man who looks to the theatre as a possibly lucrative investment, and ends up transformed; to his own surprise, perhaps, he now cares more about something other than about profit. Many of the most delightful parts of the film are part of this fun: the verbal anachronisms (playing the Palace, the show must...go on), and especially the sexual role-reversals (at rehearsals, Juliet is played by a boy dressed as a girl, and Romeo by a girl dressed as a boy). Several central scenes involve quick cuts back and forth between rehearsals and Will and Viola making love...using the same lines, even though Will most of the time says Juliet's and Viola Romeo's.
Are there any flaws? Perhaps Paltrow's readings as Romeo are not as compelling as they could have been...and she never really persuades us that she's British, though as Viola she is radiant and passionate. Ben Affleck is also an odd choice for Ned, and he performs "a plague on both your houses" rather badly...though he does project great authority and confidence. Joseph Fiennes, who single-handedly energizes the film and is brilliant in a long demanding role, is the real star...and he, Geoffrey Rush, and Colin Firth are all magnificent. What a disgrace that Fiennes wasn't even nominated for a Best Actor Oscar!
#1: Most ostensibly, it's a romanticized biography of the early turning point in Shakespeare's careerthe writing of his first indisputably great play (Romeo and Juliet), the passing of the theatrical torch from Christopher Marlowe to him, and his joining of the Chamberlain's Men, which cost him 50 pounds (an enormous figure in those days). Lots of known facts are changed, much is invented, but the overall sense is pretty reasonableand about as accurate as the typical film biography.
#2: It's a delightful fiction about a romance between Will Shakespeare and the wealthy Viola de Lessups, who is engaged to be married to the haughty but impoverished Lord Wessexa romance that inspires him to write Romeo and Juliet, largely because it plays out as a kind of mirror of that very play. Or a pre-mirror, since it isn't written yet. The ball, the balcony, the duel, the suitor, the nurse, the three appearances of the Prince of Verona (i.e. Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth)...it's all there. One of the joys for the audience who knows the play is recognizing all the anticipations embedded in the filmplus a few from other plays (like Banquo's ghost) for good measure.
#3: The film delivers in the most persuasive possible way a strong critical reading of the play Romeo and Juliet. It has been observed by many critics that this play begins as a traditional comedy, with all the stock figures and stereotypes, but halfway through (exactly halfway!) with the deaths of Mercutio and Tybalt, it turns into a tragedy, and then systematically reinterprets all the comedic scenes and characters of the first half in this newly tragic light. Stoppard's story of the writing of the play begins with Will, ecstatic with love, finally getting started on the comedy he's been promising his producer...but as the love affair with Viola darkens, his ability to sustain the comic mood disappears. At exactly the halfway point of the film, he wakes next to Viola and announces that "I found something in my sleep. It's not a comedy I'm writing any more, it's a tragedy!"
#4: Finally, this is a tribute to the joys of the theatreto acting, to writing, to producing, to simply hanging around getting enchanted by it all. A central character here is Mr. Fennyman (Tom Wilkinson), who begins as a heartless money-man who looks to the theatre as a possibly lucrative investment, and ends up transformed; to his own surprise, perhaps, he now cares more about something other than about profit. Many of the most delightful parts of the film are part of this fun: the verbal anachronisms (playing the Palace, the show must...go on), and especially the sexual role-reversals (at rehearsals, Juliet is played by a boy dressed as a girl, and Romeo by a girl dressed as a boy). Several central scenes involve quick cuts back and forth between rehearsals and Will and Viola making love...using the same lines, even though Will most of the time says Juliet's and Viola Romeo's.
Are there any flaws? Perhaps Paltrow's readings as Romeo are not as compelling as they could have been...and she never really persuades us that she's British, though as Viola she is radiant and passionate. Ben Affleck is also an odd choice for Ned, and he performs "a plague on both your houses" rather badly...though he does project great authority and confidence. Joseph Fiennes, who single-handedly energizes the film and is brilliant in a long demanding role, is the real star...and he, Geoffrey Rush, and Colin Firth are all magnificent. What a disgrace that Fiennes wasn't even nominated for a Best Actor Oscar!