From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Thursday, January 14, 1999
Subject: Re: Shakespeare in Love
One of my faculty members passed this along to me from the Monday, January 11, 1999, USA Today (5D).
". . . and finding laughs between the lines" By Trey Graham USA TODAY
Shakespeare in Love will give you the giggles even if you don't have a drama degree-though Shakespeare scholars may laugh louder and longer. Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard sprinkle their script with jokes about vain stars, show-biz rivalries and shrinks-subjects still relevant in the '90s. Still, many of the best bits are takeoffs on lines from the Bard's plays-and there, as Hamlet would put it, is the rub. Most everyone will get the joke when the Puritan preacher Makepeace rails against "sinful" theaters in phrases lifted al-most whole from Romeo and Juliet, but what about those sly references to less-familiar works? If you don't know your Cymbeline from your Coriolanus, here's a cheat sheet:
* Shakespeare's signature. Wrestling writer's block, Joseph Fiennes' Shakespeare scribbles his name over and over. Look closely You'll see he uses different spellings-a nod to the fact that the six surviving copies of Shakespeare's signature show considerable variations in abbreviation and spelling. It's not that he couldn't remember his own name; in his era, few standardized spellings existed, even of names.
* 'One Gentleman.' Fiennes says theater owner Henslowe still owes him for "One Gentleman of Verona." Apparently Henslowe has paid only half the fee for The Two Gentlemen of Verona-an early Shakespeare play, and the one that catches the attention of Gwyneth Paltrow's Lady Viola with the lines she quotws for her audition: "What light is light, if Silvia be not seen?"
* 'The Rose smells thus rank by any name.' Makepeace is talking about the Rose Theatre; he concludes with, say a plague on both their houses." Both phrases a much like famous lines from Romeo. It's a funny moment but an important one, too: this early scene, Stoppard and Norman begin to show how their Shakespeare makes art the stuff of life-the film's central idea. As the film goes on, Fiennes turns many more everyday events into high drama.
* Dr. Moth The shrewd, chemist/shrink who ponders Shakespeare's outrageous Freudian complaints ("The proud tower of my genius has collapsed") bears the name a smart-aleck page-boy who punctures the pretensions his buffoonish master in Loves' Labours Lost. (There's also fairy named Moth in A Midsummer Night's Dream.)
* 'Master Crab is nervous. He's never played the palace.' Not a Shakespeare gag, but one some younger audiences may not get: In vaudeville days, the Palace was a top-rank New York house to "play the Palace," literally or figuratively, means to make it to the big time. Today's Palace is home to Broadway's Beauty and the Beast.
* Rosaline's fall from grace. Smitten by a seamstress, Fiennes changes the title of his work-in-progress Romeo and Ethel to Romeo and Rosaline. But when he catches her in bed with another, the seamstress loses her chance at immortality. Rosaline never appears on stage in the Romeo and Juliet we know, but we're told early on that she's the object of Romeo's affection. In fact, Romeo and his cohorts crash the Capulet ball chiefly because Benvolio, Mercutio and the rest want to get a better look at Rosaline; Romeo, of course, forgets her instantly when he sees Juliet.
* 'Give me to drink mandragora' A dejected Fiennes orders this potion at the local tavern. Mandragora is a sedative, and the line is from Antony and Cleopatra; the Egyptian queen, distraught that her lover has returned to Rome, tells her servant Charmian to "Give me to drink mandragora . . . That I may sleep out this great gap of time."
* Marlowe's advice. Christopher Marlowe helps Fiennes define Romeo's character and outline the play's plot. It's funny because Marlowe is among the writers said by some doubter to be the true author of Shakespeare's plays.
* That bloodthirsty lad. A sadistic street urchin with theatrical ambitions likes Shakespeare's horrific Titus Andronicus best "Plenty of blood-that's the only writing," he says. His name, Fiennes asks? "John Webster'-who grows up to write the morbidly violent revenge tragedy The Duchess of Malfi. Possibly the most esoteric in-joke in the film
* Marlowe's 'ghost.' The church scene in which Lord Wessex glimpses a man he believes to be dead will remind some of the ghostly visitations in Hamlet. But Claudius, that play's murderer, never sees his victim's shade. Better parallels are Macbeth, in which Banquo's ghost appears to the usurper responsible for his death, and Julius Caesar, in which Caesar's ghost stalks Brutus on the battlefield.
* 'Twelfth Night.' The play Fiennes begins at the movie's close does, indeed, feature a lead named Viola who disguises herself as a boy when shipwrecked in an unknown land. And it was commissioned probably by Elizabeth I-for a court performance on Twelfth Night (Jan. 5, the last of the Twelve Days of Christmas). But it was written years after Romeo, and almost certainly wasn't inspired by a lost love-though it is the most tragic of Shakespeare's comedies.
* The apothecary's hat. Cast as the apothecary), in the play-within-the-movie, producer Hugh Fennyman (Tom Wilkinson) fusses anxiously over wearing just the right hat. His concern comes not from pride but from a need to be part of a story that has moved him deeply, and it echoes the touching vanity of Malvolio, the major domo of Twelfth Night.
*'It needs no wife come from Stratford to tell you that.' Fiennes says this to acknowledge that he can't hope to marry Paltrow (he's already married; she's engaged to a lord). The line echoes Horatio's reply to Hamlet's observation that Denmark is full of knaves and villains: 'There needs no ghost, my lord, come from the grave to tell us this." Other Hamlet references pepper Shakespeare in Love - some funny, some serious too many to list Among high lights: In a brawl. Richard Burbage gets clobbered with a skull. (The real Burbage was the first actor to play, Hamlet who delivers his "Alas, poor Yorick" speech to a skull.) Indeed, says Folger Shakespeare Library scholar Georgiana Ziegler. "As the movie. moves closer and closer to tragedy ... you get more and more echoes of Hamlet."
From: Marion K Morford Date: Sunday, 10 Jan 1999 20:34:35 +0000Subject: 'Shakespeare in Love'
Dear Bard-buds; This was in my local paper on Sunday. Morf ---------------------------------- In-jokes and allusions add humor and depth to 'Shakespeare in Love' Robert W. Butler; Knight Ridder Newspapers You don't have to know anything about the world of Elizabethan theater to enjoy "Shakespeare in Love," a romantic comedy set in the London of 1593. But those who have grounding in the personalities and events depicted may get much more from the movie. Screenwriters Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard have crammed the movie with in-jokes and scholarly references, deftly throwing together fictional characters and real historic personages and scattering visual and spoken allusions that fly over the heads of all but the most alert Shakespeare aficionados. One example: Shakespeare's plagiarism. Scholars have long recognized that Shakespeare cribbed his subjects and plots from plays, histories and other sources. They hasten to add that the Bard from Avon improved them immensely, thanks to his inventive dialogue, an unprecedented grasp of language and subtly drawn characters. "Shakespeare in Love," though, plays with the notion that Shakespeare (portrayed by Joseph Fiennes) didn't write his own dialogue but used snatches of conversation he overheard. Philip Henslowe (portrayed by Geoffrey Rush) was real, a theatrical entrepreneur who opened several theaters, including the Rose in Southwark, for which Shakespeare wrote and performed. Henslowe's account books have for 400 years provided the most complete description of Elizabethan theater - costs for costumes, fees paid to playwrights and actors, production schedules and so forth. The movie strays, though, when it portrays Henslowe as a laughable bungler and monetary incompetent in debt to a thuggish loan shark. The truth is quite different. According to "Brewer's Theater: A Phrase and Fable Dictionary," "The accounts of Henslowe's theaters include loans made to actors. Some researchers suspect that Henslowe kept actors in debt to him in order to tie them to his theater. In 1615 several actors drew up a document headed 'Articles of Grievance, and Articles of Oppression, against Mr. Hinchlowe,' accusing him of embezzling their money and unlawfully retaining their property." In the film, young Shakespeare's main theatrical rival is Christopher Marlowe, who has enjoyed several big hits while the man from Stratford struggles to find his voice. Among Marlowe's most famous plays are "The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus," "The Jew of Malta" and "Tamburlaine the Great." In the film, the young Shakespeare is struggling with the play that will eventually become "Romeo and Juliet," and the screenwriters have created for their Shakespeare a fictional lover, a young woman named Viola de Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow) who is engaged to the pompous Lord Wessex (Colin Firth). When Wessex accuses Shakespeare of having an affair with Viola and demands his name, Shakespeare answers: "Christopher Marlowe." Then, when Marlowe is killed in a tavern fight, Shakespeare is overcome with guilt. He assumes the killers were assassins sent by Wessex and fears that he is responsible for an innocent man's death. The real Marlowe was killed in a barroom brawl in Deptford in 1593; the business about Shakespeare being indirectly responsible is fiction. The real Marlowe also was gay, which makes ironic the idea of Shakespeare categorizing him as a womanizer. And though there's no reference to Marlowe's sexual orientation in the movie, he's portrayed by Rupert Everett ("My Best Friend's Wedding"), one of the few openly gay actors working in films. There's yet another in-joke at work here. When Shakespeare tries to pass himself off as Christopher Marlowe, it's a sly reference to those who have suggested that Marlowe actually wrote some of the plays credited to Shakespeare. Ned Alleyn (Ben Affleck) is a vain but talented actor who in "Shakespeare in Love" takes the showcase role of Mercutio in "Romeo and Juliet" (though he's still upset that his character is killed halfway through). There really was an Edward "Ned" Alleyn, who began his acting career about 1583 and gained wide fame for portraying Dr. Faustus and Tamburlaine in Marlowe's plays. Alleyn married three times and became quite wealthy from real estate investments and theatrical interests. Eventually he was elevated to the position of royal zookeeper and master of the royal bear garden. One of the film's minor characters is a surly street urchin (Joe Roberts) who spies on rehearsals in The Curtain Theatre and takes perverse delight in dangling a live mouse in front of a hungry feline. Late in the film we learn the boy's name: John Webster. The real John Webster was a playwright who wrote two masterpieces of the so-called Jacobean "revenge tragedy": "The White Devil" (1612) and "The Duchess of Malfi" (1614). The film suggests Webster got the theater bug after watching Shakespeare work and found it a perfect outlet for his anti-social inclinations. One of the major plot developments of "Shakespeare in Love" has Viola disguising herself as a man so she can audition for a role in Shakespeare's new play, "Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter" (which during rehearsals, at Alleyn's suggestion, will become "Romeo and Juliet"). At the time, women were banned from the English stage. Shakespeare finds himself strangely drawn to this young "man," not recognizing him as the woman he loves. Later he discovers Viola's ruse and is amused by his earlier attraction. Women posing as men became a recurring motif in Shakespeare's later comedies, and the film suggests this is where he got the idea.
From: Matthew Gretzinger Date: Monday, 11 Jan 1999 08:45:45 -0500
Subject: RE: SHK 10.0033 Re: Shakespeare in Love
Please forgive my Johnny-come-lateness. The film didn't make it to my part of Ohio 'til this last Friday. I want to thank the makers of 'Shakespeare in Love' for bringing to my local Cineplex the single word "SHAKESPEARE", in letters three feet tall, where usually stand such words as "SCREAM" or "ARMAGEDDON" or "THE FACULTY." Thanks also for the amazing film they produced, no more unfaithful to history or anachronistic than Richard III or Henry IV, and for me at least, just as much fun.
From: Hardy M. Cook Date: Monday, January 11, 1999
Subject: Re: Shakespeare in Love
>Please go see this film. Let it make an obnoxious amount of money. Let >it win more Oscars than Titanic. Send Hollywood the message that we >like this type of romantic comedy (even if not historically pure and >accurate) and that we could do with more of it and less of Adam Sandler, >and Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan not only re-making Jimmy Stewart films but >re-making their own. Forget for the films "two hours and more" traffic >of the stage/screen everything you had to learn in defense of your >dissertation and just enjoy it. Please. Hear! Hear! >>Mike Field: (I'm assuming, like most people, that the script is >>virtually entirely his [Stoppard's] own). >Yes, that's what I assume too. I am wondering if anyone knows for sure about the collaboration between Norman and Stoppard on the script? >One thing I found interesting in the film was that Gwyneth Paltrow was >a much more convincing Romeo than she was a Juliet. Independently, both my daughter Melissa and wife Kathy told me that they thought that Gwyneth Paltrow was a better Romeo than Joseph Fiennes was. Kathy elaborated, saying that she felt that Viola played Romeo the way that a woman would want a man to behave.
--------
From: Richard A. Burt Date: Tuesday, 05 Jan 1999 10:54:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Shakespeare in Love / Entertainment Weekly
The cover story of the current issue of Entertainment Weekly is devoted to the Oscar race and Gwyneth Paltrow, "Star in S in L" is on the cover. The story of the film's producer's campaign to get as many Oscars as possible is the center of the story. I saw the movie and liked it. I was disappointed in its typical mass culture account of authorship, however (Shakespeare, the romantic poet, writes out of life experiences; he never read, never adapted sources, etc). I was perplexed by its representation of Shakespeare's sexuality. On the hand, the movie goes out of its way to make Shakespeare straight. No mention of the sonnets, etc. And even Marlowe appears to be straight. No boys or tobacco around. On the other hand, the film adapts Twelfth Night (Shakespeare's love interest, Viola de Lessups, played by Paltrow becomes-surprise-the inspiration for the comedy). There are two sequences of the lovers having sex or kissing while exchanging lines by R and J. In the second, Viola is cross dressed as a boy, and wears a moustache and beard as well as a bean bag penile prosthesis. In the first scene, she reads R's lines and S reads J's. The film 'straightens' out this gender confusion at the conclusion, however, when Viola ends up playing J on stage and S plays R. I couldn't figure out if the film was closeting issues of homosexuality (none of the reviewers in any mass media publication I've read make any mention of it) or whether it is outing its own "censorship" of same. Shakespeare also cites a line of Cleopatra's "Give me drink of mandragora" (apologies if I'm inexact here). And the 'out' gay actor Rupert Everett is cast as Marlowe. I was in LA last week and at several theaters there were huge posters for the forthcoming MND. Also saw a trailer that ran before the Shakespeare in Love screening. Looks like a colorized Reinhardt redo.
From: Hardy M. Cook Date:
Wednesday, January 6, 1999 Subject: Shakespeare in Love
I would like to voice a few disagreements with Richard Burt's observations made above regarding Shakespeare in Love. I saw the movie too and loved it (despite the flat tire while trying to park near the Avalon and my vain attempts to fix it during a bout of bronchitis; so we didn't get the reduced rate and went to dinner before rather than after the show.). I was not concerned with "its typical mass culture account of authorship"; this is romantic fiction not scholarship, and a ripping good story it is. As to the issue of gender confusion, Will kisses Viola when she is dressed as Romeo wearing moustache and upon discovering Romeo is a woman writes "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day" to her. All of this seems to me to encourage speculation about gender confusion. That the boy actor playing Juliet's voice changes the day of the first performance and that Viola then gets the chance to play Juliet to Will's Romeo seems much more a plot device than a straightening out of the gender confusion. As for Marlowe's appearing straight, I didn't think so. In fact, there is a wonderful pun in the episode in which Wessex barges into the Curtain, intending to kill Will for his affair with Viola. A terrific sword fight between the two follows. Will eventually gets the better of Wessex and holds a sword to Wessex's throat, believing Wessex responsible for having Marlowe murdered (The reason for this would require another paragraph of explanation, after all Stoppard co-wrote the script). Will is stopped, however, from killing Wessex when, I believe it was Ned Allyn, says, "Wessex didn't kill Kit. He was killed over a Bill." Will replies, "Over a bill?" "Yes, you know, over a BILL." The film is so amazingly layered and such fun to watch. There is a modern level (Will's seeing his shrink about his writer's block), a sort of general-knowledge of Shakespeare level (Queen Elizabeth's suggesting Will write a comedy for Twelfth Night {By the way, happy twelfth night to all; unfortunately my doctor has ordered me off of cakes and ale for the time being}), and a more specialized-knowledge of Shakespeare level (the presence of John Webster {"I liked the part where she stabbed herself."}). I thought the film was a romp and invite others to comment.
From: Matthew C. Hansen Date: Thursday, 7 Jan 1999 10:08:13 -0600 Subject: Shakespeare in Love I am temporarily suspending my status as perpetual lurker on SHAKSPER to voice my support of Hardy's comments on "Shakespeare in Love." Yes, there are historical inaccuracies. Yes Norman and Stoppard play fast and loose with scholarly accounts of Shakespeare's use of sources and analogues. But this is not a monograph on the composition of Romeo and Juliet nor on the Elizabethan theatre milieu circa 1593. It is a romance. It is a Stoppardian-Shakespearean romance and that means that it is intelligent, witty, draws on historical and actual fact and then plays around with it. Joyce and Lenin in the Library in Zurich? A sea coast in Bohemia? Let's not get upset; let's enjoy the gag and revel in the fact that we KNOW it's fiction. Webster was educated at the Inns of Court-how could he be a grimy, blood-thirsty, cockney street urchin? Fiction. Romance. Make believe. Please go see this film. Let it make an obnoxious amount of money. Let it win more Oscars than Titanic. Send Hollywood the message that we like this type of romantic comedy (even if not historically pure and accurate) and that we could do with more of it and less of Adam Sandler, and Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan not only re-making Jimmy Stewart films but re-making their own. Forget for the films "two hours and more" traffic of the stage/screen everything you had to learn in defense of your dissertation and just enjoy it. Please.
[3] From: Richard A Burt Date: Thursday, 07 Jan 1999 13:09:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 10.0024 Re: Shakespeare in Love
In response to Mike Jensen's comment about the sonnets (if read autobiographically) being the only evidence of Shakespeare's homosexuality, let me say that my observations about Shakespeare in Love were related less to evidence about Shakespeare the man than to other mass media representations of Shakespeare as a character. In novels and in comic books, Shakespeare is regularly represented as bi or gay. In Mrs. Shakespeare, Anne Hathaway happily has anal sex with Shakespeare after discovering his interest in boys. Erica Jong also has him have sex with the Earl of Southampton in _Shylock's Daughter_. Stephanie Cowell makes him bi in The Players. Etc, etc. The question the film raises is less about mass media per se, I think, than it does the mass medium of film in particular, and why film seems more constrained than literature when it comes to representing sex and sexuality.
[4] From: Gerda Grice Date: Thursday, 7 Jan 1999 12:08:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SHK 10.0024 Re: Shakespeare in Love
One thing I found interesting in the film was that Gwyneth Paltrow was a much more convincing Romeo than she was a Juliet. Gerda Grice Ryerson Polytechnic University Toronto, Canada
[5]------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jason Mical Date: Thursday, 07 Jan 1999 11:19:05 PST Subject: Re: SHK 10.0024 Re: Shakespeare in Love It was written: >All this is not to say that the film works exclusively to closet >questions of homosexuality. As I noted in my earlier post, I was >perplexed by the way the film works contradictorily, seeming to closet >and contain potentially disruptive questions (assumed to be so for >presumptively hetero mainstream audiences) about the actors' / >playwrights' sexuality and to "out" its own closeting of same. And noted: >I particularly liked the way Stoppard played with Elizabethan (and >Shakespearian) theatrical conventions (I'm assuming, like most people, >that the script is virtually entirely his own). Cross-dressing? The >essential need for a muse? A benevolent and all-knowing monarch, >disguised and at the last, appropriate moment revealed? It seemed to me >that Stoppard was just daring critics (and academics) to take him to >task for such outlandish and, of course, unbelievable devices. Doth >strain credulity to think on't. Knowing Stoppard's had a hand in the movie, and without having seen it myself (ah Tulsa, the "stronghold of Southern culture," why do you never get any movies except "Godzilla" on a first-run basis?), I would be willing to venture that Stoppard is probably playing with some of the hot issues surrounding Shakespeare (no pun intended). In the film version of "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern," Stoppard poked fun at debates like Hamlet's attraction for his mother, whether Polonius was a clever schemer or a dumb puppet, etc. I would not be surprised if he was doing the same thing here. He seems not only to be daring critics and academics to take him to task, he is intentionally making fun of some of the academic debates and suggesting, "perhaps we should just enjoy it as humorous and dramatic literature, at least for a couple of hours."
Re: Shakespeare in Love Some more random reflections on "Shakespeare in Love." We saw the film on Tuesday, the Boxing Day showings in Rochester having sold out well in advance. It's interesting to see Imelda Saunton making a career of Nurse-like roles. She was Margaret in Branagh's "Much Ado" and Maria in Nunn's "Twelfth Night." Viola/Paltrow would be a blonde, upmarket version of the Dark Lady. Since we see her cleaning her teeth, there's no reeking breath from Sonnet 130. If she were a character in a play by Shakespeare, she would find a way to avoid marrying Wessex/Paris. But this is a play by Stoppard, which is different. Wessex, incidentally, is a brief shot at both colonialism generally and the tobacco business in particular. One wonders how his plantation in Virginia will fare (badly if he doesn't let Viola manage it). Viola's theatrical and sexual career implicitly confirms the stereotype of the loose virtues of actresses-Nell Gwynne and all that. 3. The film casually accepts Shakespeare's adultery, an acceptance which has been around about as long as the assumption that there was some fire behind the smoke of the sonnets to the Dark Lady. My colleagues in creative writing are not recommending this particular cure for writer's block. Perhaps some historicist critic will find a parallel between one Will, adulterer and feigner, and the one in Washington who generates so much acceptance.