MovieChat Forums > Shakespeare in Love (1999) Discussion > Watched Last Night

Watched Last Night

posted 12 years ago by Whoah10115
6 replies | jump to latest

I saw this film in early 1999, was still 15. I liked it but was certainly thinking a lot about the win over Saving Private Ryan...especially considering the potential Weinstein factor.

Having watched it last night, I think that the screenplay (the film's most celebrated component) has too much going on. There is the Firth character, who should be essential and feels arbitrary from the moment he's onscreen (Firth's performance doesn't much help). There are too many subplots and politicking, too many shady deals in the background...all very Shakespearen and incredibly well done, but too much. I also think the sex is rushed (tho I think the scenes of his writing, woven into them being together, are quite terrific). The film gets ahead of itself and because it's too romantic but because it's too horny, if anything. Shakespeare is quite vain at the beginning and I think I don't understand where that vanity went...Viola doesn't quite cure him of it or somehow make him better...it's simply a non-existent trait by the time he sees her. And that's an issue with the writing. Some of the films best scenes come at the expense of a cleaner (and more importantly better) screenplay. Also, rat kid is just creepy for no reason and with no kind of personality.

And yet I'm having a bit of a hard time not saying I loved the film. It's close to great. The performances are all terrific. Fiennes gives an impassioned performance as Shakespeare. He nails it.

But Gwyneth...I think Blanchett should have won the award...but this girl is mesmerizing. She's beautiful in all the right ways. The second she's onscreen I'm into everything she's sprouting. He writes a play that truly understands love, but it's all her perspective. She gets it and she's amazing.

[–] mattaca 11 years ago

"The film gets ahead of itself and because it's too romantic but because it's too horny, if anything."

If you read Romeo's lines in the play, he clearly "gets ahead of himself" when he sees Juliet for the first time. Some Shakespeare scholars argue that Shakespeare alludes to the the couple being more motivated by lust than by love.

Since the movie generally provides brilliant commentary on both the play and its critics, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the writers (Norman and Stoppard) and director (John Madden) were aware of this and intentionally played the characters in the movie the same way.

[–] Whoah10115 11 years ago

I get that. The film has a wicked sense of humor and its overtones are obvious, but it's still telling its own story.

BTW, I just happened to come online tonight so I guess perfect timing. Someone finally responded lol.

[–] mattaca 11 years ago

I'm not sure whether you mean "telling its own story" as a dig (the movie is too heavy handed), an observation (the movie's plot mirror's the play's plot), or a compliment (the movie is original)...

[–] Whoah10115 11 years ago

Very late reply but why not.

I mean the movie should tell its own story. So I while I get the lust that's at the center of Romeo & Juliet I still think that the film needs to tell its own story and not get so boggled down into inside jokes about the play inside the story.

[–] alfa-16 11 years ago

Rat kid turns into John Webster, creepy revenge playwright par excellence. Hence the obsession with blood and guts and Tilney's line 'I hope we work together again.' - a modern actor's cliché.

I'd have preferred HBC as Viola, she'd have been much better at male impersonation and Gwynnie's blank verse on stage was a bit weak but she managed everything else quite well. And, forget Meryl Streep, her performance is still where the bar is set for an American actress with an English accent.

[–] ceebeegee 11 years ago

"I loiked it when sh' stabbed 'erself." That line kills me. Also I love the look on Will's face when he's watching the kid play with the mice and the cat.