Film review

Shakespeare in Love

1998 · Directed by John Madden · 2h 04m · MPA R

In a sentenceShakespeare falls in love, but the actors are already quite happily in love with themselves

RomanceHistoryComedyDrama

Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) is a playwright whose love affair with Viola De Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow) feeds into the writing of Romeo and Juliet. Around them, actors and competing interests complicate the business of getting a play before an audience. Their romance unfolds amid court intrigue and backstage politics, as personal experience becomes material for performance. John Madden directs a story that imagines the relationship between Shakespeare’s life and his writing, with Geoffrey Rush as Philip Henslowe, Ben Affleck as Ned Alleyn and Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth.

Plays from YouTube when you press play; nothing loads from them until then.

Fi1m review

John Madden’s Shakespeare in Love is a witty, affectionate period comedy, strongest when the theatre people take charge. The romance feels too neatly arranged, but the writing and the company make it worth an evening.

John Madden’s Shakespeare in Love is good company: funny about theatrical vanity, fond of its lovers and occasionally too pleased with how neatly everything fits. Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard’s screenplay imagines Shakespeare’s romance feeding his work, with enough backstage business to keep the conceit from becoming a literature lesson. The historical comedy works because the people making theatre are allowed to be ambitious, self-interested and ridiculous. Joseph Fiennes plays Will Shakespeare, with Gwyneth Paltrow as Viola De Lesseps.

Norman and Stoppard understand the comedy of treating a theatre as a workplace. Money, status and competing interests keep interrupting the supposedly more important business of inspiration, and Madden makes room for the people doing the interrupting. The literary jokes are enjoyable without making recognition seem compulsory, although the script sometimes seems to pause for appreciation. Its cleverest recurring idea is also its simplest: the love affair supplies material for Romeo and Juliet.

Fiennes gives Will an earnestness that holds up well amid the surrounding nonsense. Paltrow’s Viola is engaging enough to make the idea of her inspiring a writer seem plausible without much explanation. We were unexpectedly touched by their shared pleasure in language. As the romance feeds the play, both actors make the connection feel personal. The trouble comes when the screenplay’s determination to fit everything together leaves their courtship looking too carefully arranged.

Madden has the good sense to let the supporting actors enjoy themselves. Ben Affleck’s Ned Alleyn is particularly welcome, bringing an actor’s self-importance into a film already well supplied with it. Geoffrey Rush’s Philip Henslowe and Tom Wilkinson’s Hugh Fennyman give the theatrical business its comic weight, without making it seem a distraction from the lovers. Judi Dench plays Queen Elizabeth with a briskness that is welcome in such eager-to-please company.

Richard Greatrex’s cinematography is perhaps too flattering to the romance; the lovers can seem protected from the untidiness that makes the theatre scenes lively. Martin Childs’s production design is more persuasive in the theatrical setting, where the period detail helps us believe in a place of work. The surroundings give the company a convincing home without becoming the whole attraction. Sandy Powell’s costume design adds to the pleasure of watching a film so thoroughly absorbed in dressing up.

David Gamble’s editing handles the competing theatrical interests briskly, but the romantic passages sometimes linger beyond what the actors can usefully give them. Stephen Warbeck’s music encourages tenderness where a little uncertainty might have made the affair more affecting. Neither choice spoils the film, though both contribute to its determination to make us comfortable. Those pauses are noticeable across the 124 minutes.

Period romantic comedies can be terribly anxious about their own respectability, and Madden lets enough foolishness through to keep that problem at bay. This one takes few risks, but its pleasure in performers is hard to resist. For a romantic evening, it is a sound choice, provided neither party minds the theatre business getting so much of the attention.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

3 of 6
Positive
2
Mixed
1
Negative
0
The Times
28 January 1999 · James Christopher
80*

The critic praises the film as a thrilling, sentimental and hilarious celebration of theatre's magic and the haphazard creative process, with a sophisticated modern sensibility applied to Renaissance theatre folk. It singles out the performances of Paltrow and Fiennes and the way the play maps the lovers' destiny.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
29 January 1999 · Jonathan Romney
60*

The critic views the film as a witty but ultimately safe and packaging-driven romantic farce that plays it safe to please everyone, with in-jokes for literati and heritage prestige elements. It singles out the clever interplay between life and art in the script, particularly the way the romance inspires the play, while noting it falls short of true comic flair.

Read the full review →
Empire
· Ian Nathan

The critic calls it a delightful success that cleverly fuses wit, comedy and romance while playing with Shakespearean lore and theatrical history. He highlights the playful script, strong supporting cast including Ben Affleck, and the film's energetic, brainy crowd-pleasing qualities despite some reservations about the central romance.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
11 December 1998 · Kenneth Turan

The critic describes the film as a happy conceit smoothly executed, one of those entertaining confections pleasing to the eye and ear. He singles out the drollness associated with co-writer Tom Stoppard and the rare ability to wear its cleverness with grace and ease.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
25 December 1998 · Roger Ebert

The critic praises the film's wit, energy, and sweetness, noting how it reminds viewers that Shakespeare was once a young playwright on the make and that theater is as much business as show. He highlights the sweet love story, court intrigue, and backstage politics as elements that carry the audience along.

Read the full review →
Sight and Sound
1 February 1999 · Philip Kemp

The critic describes the film as a lively, eclectic mix of romance, farce, satire and literary gags that works well as a whole. Particular praise goes to the strong ensemble acting and the chemistry between the leads.

Read the full review →

Cast

Stills

Awards

Academy Awards, 1999

Nominated
Best Cinematography
Nominated
Best Director
Nominated
Best Film Editing
Nominated
Best Makeup and Hairstyling
Nominated
Best Sound
Nominated
Best Supporting Actor
Won
Best Actress
Won
Best Costume Design
Won
Best Original Musical or Comedy Score
Won
Best Picture
Won
Best Production Design
Won
Best Supporting Actress
Won
Best Writing, Original Screenplay

If you liked this, try…

Stage Beauty poster

Stage Beauty

2004 · Another period romance in which theatrical work complicates desire and identity.

Day for Night poster

Day for Night

1973 · For the backstage fuss, fragile egos and affection for people making films.

To Be or Not to Be poster

To Be or Not to Be

1942 · Actors confront danger with professional vanity intact; the comedy has sharper teeth.

Much Ado About Nothing poster78

Much Ado About Nothing

1993 · Shakespearean courtship with more sunlight, sharper quarrels and an equally game company.

The King and the Clown poster

The King and the Clown

2005 · Court performers, unruly desire and a more dangerous relationship between theatre and power.