|
Shakespeare in Love review
:. Director: John Madden
:. Starring: Gwyneth Paltrow, Joseph Fiennes
:. Running Time: 2:17
:. Year: 1998
:. Country: USA
|
Shakespeare in Love, like its challenger Saving Private Ryan, surely merits an Oscar for the most overrated movie of the year. Since we're being frank, let's say that Shakespeare in Love is at the limit of tolerable.
First of all, the story is concocted as a Disney tale. Nice, impassioned writer Joseph Fiennes, flanked by a ridiculous disneyian sidekick (Geoffrey Rush) who, in order to conquer his innocent love (Gwyneth Paltrow) must confront his nasty rival (Colin Firth) before finding professional and personal success at the end, with a kiss, in front of an applauding audience. One can only imagine with horror the effort of imagination it took the scriptwriters to show us just how the play of Romeo and Juliet was inspired by the life of its author.
Moving on to the acting, which is as remarkable as the script is elaborate. If Joseph Fiennes doesn't manage to steal the show, despite the display of his protruding eyes every time he wants to express astonishment, then Gwyneth Paltrow artfully demonstrates her lack of recognizable talent. It's imperative to see her recite Shakespeare with violins in the background with as much emotion as a bag of hammers. This new darling of bedridden Hollywood is so gifted that even when interpreting a man she makes no effort to make her puny voice sound masculine. Geoffrey Rush shows that he is a chameleon capable of slithering through the austerity of his role in Elizabeth to become a ridiculous contemporary buffoon. Judi Dench is as severe as Queen Elizabeth as she was as M in James Bond, and she certainly does not eclipse Cate Blanchett. As for Ben Affleck, he resembles an arrogant football player more than an actor of the stage. Really, the only actor who deserves an Oscar is the mischievous looking dog.
If it's possible to resist the first 30 boring minutes all the way to the staged fights that come out of nowhere to the scene featuring Paltrow and Fiennes that looks copied from the video cover of the Sweet Hereafter by Egoyan, one finds a certain old fashioned charm, a colored cinematography and two funny soliloquies.
Why has this film been so successful? It must be because the name Shakespeare gives it a certain intelligent air, as in "Oh, I loved Shakespeare in Love." Indeed, a new marketing concept of late includes the name of a famous author in the title. The movie, an adaptation of a book or life of this author makes the audience believe it's educated without having to open a book. The film, as well as the dialogues have to be simple, to be easy to understand, being to litterature what fast-food is to "cuisine". This is why Brannagh failed in adapting Shakespeare whose verses are not as easy to digest as Barbara Cartland's. Unfortunatley this concept is also in use with John Grisham and Stephen King's ready-to film books, in a country where they are considered as writers.. .
Fred Thom
 Reviews of American Indie & Arthouse Movies
Reviews 2012 - present
Reviews of Foreign Movies
Reviews of French Movies
Blu-Ray Releases
Reviews of Cults Films
Reviews 1998 - 2012
|
|
