Kate Winslet would have rocked as Viola !!! - Shakespeare in Love (1999) Discussion

[–] alfa-16 14 years ago

Stoppard wanted Bonham Carter, who can be a convincing man. But Weinstein insisted on Paltrow. The American female producer, after seeing the first cut, claimed that Paltrow carried it and it would be unreleasable without her.

reply

[–] emeraldgreen 14 years ago

I don't know who wanted whom originally, but Julia Roberts was attached to it for a very long time. She wouldn't do it unless Daniel Day-Lewis would play Shakespeare. He was interested but had other commitments, so it never came off. I think he would have been brilliant -- he can play ANYBODY! I'm not sure about Roberts though. And I really don't think Kate Winslet would have been right for it. Paltrow had exactly the right kind of ethereal quality that both Winslet and Bonham Carter don't. It made the character of Viola almost a dream as much as a real woman.

reply

[–] paulokox 11 years ago

Nop..neither Lewis and neither 100 times Roberts! Paltrow and Fiennes where wonderful!

reply

[–] alfa-16 14 years ago

Do you even know what are the two most important requirements for this role?

Well it's clear to everyone that you don't.

Paltrow's 'line reading', if by that you mean blank verse delivery, was awful especially when on stage.

reply

[–] rrb 14 years ago

What did you find so awful about it?

reply

[–] alfa-16 14 years ago

When she was on stage, as Thomas Kent, she frequently seemed to not understand the sense of what she was saying, especially during the central long scene lifted from Act II. Or at least, not bothering to communicate it.

reply

[–] rrb 14 years ago

She communicated perfectly well. Maybe you did just didn't get it.

reply

[–] alfa-16 14 years ago

She communicated perfectly well. Maybe you did just didn't get it.

Well if you put like that, no she didn't.

Even though she is supposed to be distracted, she clearly does not understand the whole 'palm to palm' speech as her stresses are all misplaced. Her balcony scene was also amateurish and though there may have been some intentions on the part of the director here to distinguish her reading what Will delivered her personally, such as the sonnets or her scenes with Romeo, from what she performed as an actor on the stage at The Globe, it doesn't work for me as poor acting, is simply poor acting, even if it is intentional.

reply

[–] erin_m_heart_soul 14 years ago

______________________________________________________________________

Well if you put like that, no she didn't.

Even though she is supposed to be distracted, she clearly does not understand the whole 'palm to palm' speech as her stresses are all misplaced. Her balcony scene was also amateurish and though there may have been some intentions on the part of the director here to distinguish her reading what Will delivered her personally, such as the sonnets or her scenes with Romeo, from what she performed as an actor on the stage at The Globe, it doesn't work for me as poor acting, is simply poor acting, even if it is intentional.

___________________________________________________________________________

Just want to point out that in this film she is the first person to EVER play Romeo. So there is no basis or background for her to base her performance on, so it's not really fair to say her stresses were off when performing-she was figuring the script out for the first time.
And being that the character WAS an amateur actor it would make sense that she is amateurish.

reply

[–] rrb 14 years ago

LOL! Are you some condescending theatre queen who thinks she knows the only way to speak Shakespearean meter? There are many ways, dear, and Paltrow's line readings were perfectly intelligible and appropriate to the amateur actor she was playing.

reply

[–] jakob3 14 years ago

Check out Olivia Hussey in the 1968 movie.

Her readings are so perfect one forgets it is not real life.

reply

[–] paleolith 13 years ago

Paltrow's line readings were perfectly intelligible and appropriate to the amateur actor she was playing.

That's exactly what the person you responded to was saying. What are you objecting to?

Edward

reply

[–] puirt-a-beul 13 years ago

Even though she is supposed to be distracted, she clearly does not understand the whole 'palm to palm' speech as her stresses are all misplaced. Her balcony scene was also amateurish and though there may have been some intentions on the part of the director here to distinguish her reading what Will delivered her personally, such as the sonnets or her scenes with Romeo, from what she performed as an actor on the stage at The Globe, it doesn't work for me as poor acting, is simply poor acting, even if it is intentional.

That's my sense of it too, alfa-16.

I used to be quite swept along by Paltrow's luminous quality, but I just recently got this film on Blu-ray, and watched it for the first time in a few years, and I was a bit rocked by how wooden her line readings are. It's a bit of a pity, when even Ben Affleck handles his lines better (though he clearly has far fewer).

You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

reply

[–] alfa-16 13 years ago

A definite contender for best ever performance as an Englishman by an American. I thought Affleck was going to go on and do great things after this. Shows how wrong I can be.

reply

[–] say_y 11 years ago

The script just felt off. It was a mess. The actors give confusing performances so the accuracy of their lines became the least of my worries. Even colin firth, who rarely disappoints me, is lackluster here. Affleck is highly enjoyable but makes some strange choices. Argo won best picture so maybe his true calling is directing. It feels like maybe all the actors held back with the comedy when they should have let go. I would have never guessed that would
happen. Maybe Paltrow has yet to really find her place. I did like her in Sylvia. Judi Dench is the only one who is solid.

reply

[–] SteveH2002 12 years ago

Even though she is supposed to be distracted, she clearly does not understand the whole 'palm to palm' speech as her stresses are all misplaced. Her balcony scene was also amateurish and though there may have been some intentions on the part of the director here to distinguish her reading what Will delivered her personally, such as the sonnets or her scenes with Romeo, from what she performed as an actor on the stage at The Globe, it doesn't work for me as poor acting, is simply poor acting, even if it is intentional.

I'm working my way - backwards from 2011 - the top 100 box office movies of a given year. I've recently seen Paltrow in 3 films made within a year or two of 2000 - Possession, Sliding Doors and SIL. She is handsome enough in Elizabethian era outfits, but I have yet to figure out what the industry saw in her. Her good looks hide a shallow vessel. Poor acting is rather the rule than the exception for her.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ceebeegee 11 years ago

Do you really think KW would've been believable as a young man? She's pretty busty.

Gwyneth was sublime.

reply