Shakespeare in Love

Subject: Shakespeare in Love: Untouchable Old Will
John Maden’s Shakespeare in Love was a rather ambitious undertaking that played out quite predictably in my mind, but I suppose it has its moments. For instance, the take on “the show must go on” was genuinely amusing. And Geoffrey Rush truly shines as the hilarious Phillip Henslowe who walks that thin line between blind faith and sheer stupidity. Given his performance it is difficult to believe that the next year he would star in a gem like House on Haunted Hill. Oh how the mighty doth fall. Why Geoffrey, why? Perhaps Shakespeare in Love was not splendid enough to safeguard your career, which brings me to a few questions concerning the film. Is it possible to effectively fabricate a love story alongside Romeo and Juliet, the greatest romance of all time? Can anyone really touch Shakespeare and live to tell the tale? Perhaps, but I don’t think this film does.
I have never much cared for Gwynnie-bear and her celeb-status is somewhat of a hindrance to the film. Here’s a lovely little story about Shakespeare falling in love and all I can think about is how anyone allows Brad Pitt to fade out of their life and then goes on to name their baby “Apple.” Perhaps a little less infamous Viola would have complimented unfamiliar actor Joseph Fiennes’ charming Shakespeare. Colin Firth is an unconvincing villain and the jealousy never really bursts into the film. Though the story of Romeo and Juliet is timeless, this and the other supposedly inventive renditions are played out. Filmmakers must be taught that the story of Juliet and her Romeo stands alone and needs no explanation (especially from tainted 20th century hands). Shakespeare in Love is poor attempt at usurping some of Will’s magic. Perhaps if someone other than Marlowe had died the film might have had more impact.