Shakespeare in Love is one of those films where every element comes together. However, it is to what level they come together that leaves it at less than perfect.
The Art Direction/Production Design, Costumes, Sets (in short the total
package visually) created a convincing and beautiful rendition of Elizabethan England. Was it an excellent rendition? No. The Designers used the said
elements to accentuate specific characters, and almost ignored others. Only the sets of the theatres, Greenwich, and the de Lesseps House were tended to with great care.
The score is less than memorable, yet it gets a Best Original Score win? Cinematography was done well enough, but there are whole scenes that frankly
could have been visualized better.
Acting: The acting is what makes this film play better than it prolly should. Rush, Wilkinson, Fiennes, Paltrow, and Dench all gave stellar performances. Rush, Wilkinson, and Dench clearly created characters that were, sadly, far
more interesting and entertaining than Paltrow and Fiennes. One of my biggest complaints with this film is that the supporting characters and cast are more interesting than the lead characters and cast. This is the biggest problem for the movie.
On to Writing: Tom Stoppard is an under-appreciated genious. His work is
interesting, thought-provoking, and always very carefully articulated. This film is very well crafted from beginning to end. The script, along with Dench, Rush, Wilkinsin, and Director John Madden's vision come together to make a classic.
So, why the criticism? This film is at a level [8 out of 10] where it is stale to say "great this, great that." At this level of filmmaking, it is necessary to tear apart what it could have done better to indicate the difference between 8, 9, and 10. because of the aforementioned problems, while excellent Shakespeare in Love
nets only an 8.
The Art Direction/Production Design, Costumes, Sets (in short the total
package visually) created a convincing and beautiful rendition of Elizabethan England. Was it an excellent rendition? No. The Designers used the said
elements to accentuate specific characters, and almost ignored others. Only the sets of the theatres, Greenwich, and the de Lesseps House were tended to with great care.
The score is less than memorable, yet it gets a Best Original Score win? Cinematography was done well enough, but there are whole scenes that frankly
could have been visualized better.
Acting: The acting is what makes this film play better than it prolly should. Rush, Wilkinson, Fiennes, Paltrow, and Dench all gave stellar performances. Rush, Wilkinson, and Dench clearly created characters that were, sadly, far
more interesting and entertaining than Paltrow and Fiennes. One of my biggest complaints with this film is that the supporting characters and cast are more interesting than the lead characters and cast. This is the biggest problem for the movie.
On to Writing: Tom Stoppard is an under-appreciated genious. His work is
interesting, thought-provoking, and always very carefully articulated. This film is very well crafted from beginning to end. The script, along with Dench, Rush, Wilkinsin, and Director John Madden's vision come together to make a classic.
So, why the criticism? This film is at a level [8 out of 10] where it is stale to say "great this, great that." At this level of filmmaking, it is necessary to tear apart what it could have done better to indicate the difference between 8, 9, and 10. because of the aforementioned problems, while excellent Shakespeare in Love
nets only an 8.