While I don't mind you pointing out the historically acurate facts the movie alludes to, I do take issue with your statement that Stoppard would be "teaching everyone false history", because this is entirely besides the point.
Unlike your typical movie about some historical event that twists and tweaks facts in order to tell a compelling story according to the Western rules of storytelling, the screenplay to "Shakespeare in Love" does not try to do any such thing.
Tom Stoppard is one of the most famous writers of postmodern literature and the screenplay for "Shakespeare in Love" should be viewed in this way as well. One of the main concepts of postmodernism is that a work of art is stitched together of numerous quotes, allusions, clippings and elements of works of art that have gone before it. Still, the enjoyment of the piece of art in itself is not dependent on the knowledge of the source, it can be appreciated as a story on itself. However, knowing about the allusions and quotes can help to view the piece of literature in a different and can deepen the enjoyment of the piece. I have VERY much simplified this point for the sake of the argument, please read up on postmodernism if you want to know more.
"Shakespeare in Love" never claims to tell a real story based on historical events. The movie makes this clear by quickly and humorously hinting at certain aspects Shakespeare scholars fight about, for example by showing Shakespeare practicing his signature. A person who does not know anything about Shakespeare or discussion points of Shakespeare studies may not understand what this is about and only take it as a humorous side gag, people who are more proficient in the field, however, get the hint that what follows will be an intertextual satire on perceptions on Shakespeare's work. But even people who don't know about the signatures will get that the cup with "Greetings from Stratford upon Avon" printed on it is not a historical artefact but actually a hint to present times and therefore understand that they are not watching a history lesson.
I want to make this clear with just one example from your list: the murder of Christophr Marlowe. This is not purposefully changed by Stoppard so that it can fit neatly into the story with him hoping that audiences will not notice the things that are wrong about it. On the contrary, Stoppard puts it in completely acknowledging a well-read audience knowing about Marlowe end AND the whole discussion that has been had among scholars and historians about how it may have come to pass. He is actually making a humorous comment about it. If you do not know about Christopher Marlowe, how he lived, how he died and how scholars have been discussiong about this for years, than you might just take it as a dramatic turning point in the story. However, if you know the background of it, the whole affair within the movie and the implecation that Shakespeare may or may not have had something to do with it, actually becomes quite funny.
Like the greatest works of postmodern literature, what makes the script to "Shakespeare in Love" so successful is that it is highly accessible even without any knowledge of Shakespeare, even though then you might just take it for a silly historical romantic comedy. However, the more you know about Shakespeare (and the entertainment industry), the more layered and the deeper this script becomes for you and the more you can actually appreciate it.
Personally, the only real gripe that I have with the screenplay, the one thing I wish Stoppard would have avoided, is that he went with the notion that "Romeo and Juliet" is a play about love, when it is actually a lot more than that. Reducing "Romeo and Juliet" to this populist notion seems a little bit too easy for me and I wish he would have commented more on this misreading rather than just going with the common knowledge of Joe Everyman about the play.
reply
share