I first saw this movie when I was a young and impressionable film student. I disliked it back then almost entirely due to it beating out the near perfect "Saving Private Ryan" for Best Picture. I still hold this opinion, but I would be amiss if I did not mention how much has changed. I got my degree, not in film but in theatre, and I am now an expert on Shakespeare, both his life and works. It has only caused me to be even more critical of this film.
There is certainly some impressive writing on display, as one would expect from an intellect like Tom Stoppard. He added small, brief, yet clever details about the historical period one can only find if looking. The language is beautifully constructed and true to the time period and region. Stoppard also expertly justified how this openly fictitious love affair could have been plausible, considering the timeline of Shakespeare's whereabouts and activity. That all being said, Stoppard and the other writers had to make exceptions to their research.
For starters, "Romeo & Juliet" could not have been inspired by a real love story because it itself was not a love story. R&J was a tragedy with hardly any sympathetic protagonists. Certainly poetic, perhaps, but not written to be one of Will's romances, nor was it his most popular work. Viewers at the time much preferred his histories and comedies. R&J also could not have been an original work because it was already based on previous ones, particularly a poem, character names and all. The filmmakers should have either made a romantic comedy or a historical biography. Instead, they tried to meet in the middle, and it only resulted in numerous inconsistencies.
Outside of the writing, the problems became even more evident. The casting was poor. No one accurately looked their part, particularly Fiennes's Shakespeare or Everett's Kit Marlowe. Playwrights at the time were far from dreamboats and barely even local celebrities.
The actors did not get the job done, either. None of them were huge negative standouts to me, except maybe Affleck and Paltrow, but to win two acting Oscars? That seems absurd. I love Judi Dench as much as anyone else, but she practically did nothing for her brief 8 minutes on screen. Her convincing portrayal of the queen was more a testament to the costume and makeup, rather than her acting performance. Paltrow, however, was just plain bad. She was a cliché romantic lead with the most drab of deliveries, not to mention how horribly unconvincing she was in drag. She certainly did not deserve her hardware. Going back to the writing, the story would have benefited from limiting her role and instead introducing his wife, Anne, and the children. Perhaps doing away with Paltrow altogether exploring one of Will's real-life rumored love affairs would better sell the realism, especially considering one was with a man... It was still alleged, but nevertheless more intriguing than anything written for the screen. The drama regarding Will's infidelity would have been a much better choice, as opposed to focusing on a contrived "romance" and glossing over the fact that this fictional version is, in fact, a cheating dirtbag.
Despite this movie lacking in writing, directing, acting, and bad hair design (both facial and on top), it still made up some ground in other production elements, such as costumes and scenic design. For long time fans of the Bard, this movie could still perhaps be immersive, and I can certainly recognize its strengths, but its weaknesses drastically need to be acknowledged more frequently.
There is certainly some impressive writing on display, as one would expect from an intellect like Tom Stoppard. He added small, brief, yet clever details about the historical period one can only find if looking. The language is beautifully constructed and true to the time period and region. Stoppard also expertly justified how this openly fictitious love affair could have been plausible, considering the timeline of Shakespeare's whereabouts and activity. That all being said, Stoppard and the other writers had to make exceptions to their research.
For starters, "Romeo & Juliet" could not have been inspired by a real love story because it itself was not a love story. R&J was a tragedy with hardly any sympathetic protagonists. Certainly poetic, perhaps, but not written to be one of Will's romances, nor was it his most popular work. Viewers at the time much preferred his histories and comedies. R&J also could not have been an original work because it was already based on previous ones, particularly a poem, character names and all. The filmmakers should have either made a romantic comedy or a historical biography. Instead, they tried to meet in the middle, and it only resulted in numerous inconsistencies.
Outside of the writing, the problems became even more evident. The casting was poor. No one accurately looked their part, particularly Fiennes's Shakespeare or Everett's Kit Marlowe. Playwrights at the time were far from dreamboats and barely even local celebrities.
The actors did not get the job done, either. None of them were huge negative standouts to me, except maybe Affleck and Paltrow, but to win two acting Oscars? That seems absurd. I love Judi Dench as much as anyone else, but she practically did nothing for her brief 8 minutes on screen. Her convincing portrayal of the queen was more a testament to the costume and makeup, rather than her acting performance. Paltrow, however, was just plain bad. She was a cliché romantic lead with the most drab of deliveries, not to mention how horribly unconvincing she was in drag. She certainly did not deserve her hardware. Going back to the writing, the story would have benefited from limiting her role and instead introducing his wife, Anne, and the children. Perhaps doing away with Paltrow altogether exploring one of Will's real-life rumored love affairs would better sell the realism, especially considering one was with a man... It was still alleged, but nevertheless more intriguing than anything written for the screen. The drama regarding Will's infidelity would have been a much better choice, as opposed to focusing on a contrived "romance" and glossing over the fact that this fictional version is, in fact, a cheating dirtbag.
Despite this movie lacking in writing, directing, acting, and bad hair design (both facial and on top), it still made up some ground in other production elements, such as costumes and scenic design. For long time fans of the Bard, this movie could still perhaps be immersive, and I can certainly recognize its strengths, but its weaknesses drastically need to be acknowledged more frequently.