Regularly regarded as one of the worst decisions for Best Picture in the history of the Academy, Shakespeare in Love is actually not as bad of a film as people put it. Actually, I find it rather entertaining. Although lots of people like it, many outrage that Saving Private Ryan was more deserving of the top prize. I agree, but is this film necessarily worth complaining about that much?
Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) is known as a struggling writer, poet, and actor who has scripts sold to Phillip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush), but currently has a writers block. He claims to make it a comedy, called "Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter." Despite being a catchy title, he can't think of the material to use. Then one day, in search of a muse, he meets Viola and all of the material comes to mind. She is an avid theatre lover but cannot take the stage because women were not allowed to at the time. In order to perform, she disguises herself as a male with the stage name "Thomas Kent" and auditions for Shakespeare's most recent play. Shakespeare sees through the disguise and chases her down. Then a love affair soon ensues, although Viola is already engaged to a man she does not want to marry.
Of course, the last sentence of the previous paragraph sounds familiar to a piece of the actual Shakespeare's work. Eventually, he changes it to a tragedy known as Romeo and Juliet.
This is historical fiction, but it feels realistic in such a way that it sounds convincing to the audience. It's tricky in the way everything is set up. Shakespeare gets the name of "Mercutio" from a competitive writer; Ned Alleyn (Ben Affleck) is immediately hired for a role by his demand and receives the part of Mercutio. When he asks Will what the play is entitled, Shakespeare lies and says, Mercutio. Alleyn then later says it really should be called Romeo and Juliet.
That's one example of why this film is deserving of Best Original Screenplay - yes, over Pvt. Ryan. The whole scenario is just a bit of the whole irony in relation to his script versus real life. It gets unique almost to the point where it becomes hysterical to watch, and this film is listed as a comedy.
I have always been a fan of films about historical figures, exaggerated or not. While writing this review, I have noticed that it looks a lot like Peter Shaffer's Amadeus. It looks familiar in terms of art direction, makeup, and I always found Fiennes to be familiar of Tom Hulce, who played the title character in Amadeus. And yes, that is a very positive thing.
This is a very cute, romantic film, and I feel that the reason it beat out Spielberg's classic is because it's more of a film that appeals to the Academy. Of course some may disagree, but how come The King's Speech outdid The Social Network? Or even for some that deserved it, like Lawrence of Arabia or The Bridge on the River Kwai. The Academy has always been biased towards historical films. Still, this film is very good, and receives a 3/4.
