[.ca] Shakespeare in Love (Widescreen) (Collector's Series)

Amazon.ca:
Lauréat de sept oscars, dont celui du meilleur film et de la meilleure actrice (Gwyneth Paltrow), Shakespeare et Juliette (Shakespeare in Love), de John Madden, possède la fraîcheur et le piquant d'un verre de champagne glacé. Cette comédie romantique, qui joue habilement sur le travestissement, se veut aussi un hommage au théâtre. Nous sommes en Angleterre, en 1592. Un certain Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) tombe amoureux de la belle Lady Viola (Paltrow). Cela suffit pour lui redonner l'inspiration ; il se met alors à écrire une pièce qui se déroule à Vérone. Déguisée en jeune homme, Lady Viola auditionne pour le rôle masculin et l'obtient. Malheureusement, il est interdit aux femmes de monter sur les planches dans le royaume d'Élizabeth I (Judi Dench).... Qu'à cela ne tienne ! Roméo se transformera en Juliette et l'amour triomphera de ces mille et uns écueils. Acclamé à l'unanimité par la critique, Shakespeare et Juliette repose sur un scénario intelligent, plein d'humour et de fantaisie. Certaines répliques ("Qui est-ce ?" "Oh, personne : l'auteur.") réjouiront ceux qui oeuvrent dans le milieu du divertissement. Les scènes d'amour flatteront les coeurs tendres. Et puisque nous sommes au théâtre, il y a même un peu de transgression dans cette histoire aux allures de bluette inoffensive. Un film charmant qui séduira tous les publics, à ne rater sous aucun prétexte. --Hélène de Billy

Rush in an unforgettable role:
Although Geoffrey Rush is not the star of the film, he delivers a memorable performance, as usual. Fiennes does, also. The costuming is very beautiful, and the humour is delightful. Highly reccommended.

Emotionally Fraudulent and Morally Offensive NON-Love Story:
Before I start out, I should say that I am NOT one of those people who think they have to deride "Shakespeare in Love" because it's a "chick flick" and therefore unworthy(?!) of Oscars. Nor do I feel the need to condemn it for winning Best Picture over "Saving Private Ryan," as so many have done. I certainly do have a beef in that regard -- and it's that my own favorite film of 1998, "The Truman Show," wasn't even nominated for Best Picture! But none of these things have anything to do with my loathing for "Shakespeare in Love." My beef is solely with the offensive nature of the film itself. It's advertised as a love story, but is emotionally and morally empty when it comes to any notion of love. You could see the writers straining to convince us that those two awesomely idiotic characters, Will and Viola, were really deserving to be the inspiration for "Romeo and Juliet." The film wanted to show that "the truth and nature of love" so magnificently expressed in Shakespeare's play resulted from this casual (and to my mind very unromantic) affair between a lying weasel of a married man, and an apparently dimwitted girl who can't be bothered to decide whether she wants to marry him or not, though she's being forced into marriage with a man she hates. Starting out by having a man needing to fall in love for a mercenary reason -- so he can finish his play -- and then conveniently having him decide that the first pretty girl who comes along is the love of his life, doesn't strike me as a convincing way to start a love story. Did writers Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard really stop to think this out? From the beginning we know he's using this girl, and they never find a convincing way to show us that this ever changes. The worst line in the film, to my mind, comes right after their first soft-core sex scene. Viola murmurs: "I never would have believed that there could be something better than a play -- even your play!" Will: "Huh?" Well, there goes any possible higher emotional or spiritual aspect to their relationship. This is the deepest flaw in the movie (which was otherwise well acted, gorgeously shot and beautifully costumed). I could not enjoy it or buy into it in the slightest because the fundamental conception of the filmmakers was based on modern notions of love that don't go beyond the purely physical. Descriptions of love in Western literature have at least on occasion gone much deeper than that. The Will in "Shakespeare in Love" not only couldn't have written "Romeo and Juliet"'s dramatic sonnet "If I profane with my unworthiest hand this holy shrine. . ." he wouldn't even have been able to understand it. Not to mention the glamorization of a man's adultery, and the strenuous attempts to avoid all the real-life emotional ramifications of such an action, in favor of a feel-good justification of it, in spite of the obvious harm to the young virginal woman who was used by a cad. But it's excused and made to seem no real harm, by having her anger abated by thinking Will is dead, then readily going back to him when she discovers he's alive (a cheap dramatic trick if I ever saw one). Above all, no matter what a real Elizabethan girl's attitude miught have been, Viola is made to adopt the "modern" attitude (love is just a "stolen season"). I think there actually could have been a believable story in the idea of Shakespeare falling in love while writing "Romeo and Juliet." Why not start with the historical fact that Shakespeare didn't even make up the plot of the play at all, much less make it up out of his own love life? In fact, "Romeo and Juliet" was an Italian novella that had gone the rounds of Europe, had been turned into a French play, an English poem and at least one preceding English play. What if Shakespeare finds himself adapting this love story, not believing in love, then actually falls in love in a way that resembles the plot of "Romeo and Juliet"? I think it would have been nice if he had fallen in love with a virgin like Viola, realized in all conscience he couldn't take advantage of her, and wrote his play out of his frustrated love, which he turns into art. I think it would have been more convincing. But of course then it wouldn't have been a Miramax film . . .

A GOOFY YET DELICIOUSLY SEDUCTIVE ROMANTIC COMEDY!:
The DVD casing claimed in big bold letters "Best Screenplay" Academy Award winner. I can surely see why! Must have been some deviously creative team that crafted this crisp comic period-piece. The film is really two love stories: one a bawdy romance between two smitten humans, and the other an ode to the art of theatre. The writers'/director's love for showmanship is loud and evident throughout the brilliant screenplay, and if you're a fan of wordplay in any way, well then this is a surefire delight. Both Paltrow and Fienners turn in lusciously romantic performances in their respective roles -- she pulls off the formidable order of gender-switching without a hitch, and he has just the right pitches and patterns for a young, struggling Shakespeare. Geoffrey Rush is magnetic as usual. Don't be fooled by the Elizabethan accoutrements, this film and its arsenal of laconic quips could easily shoot several contemporary romances to dust. Buy this one in fact, don't just rent, it quite comfortably stands the test of more than one viewing..

Hollywood Takes On Shakespeare:
This won the Oscar for Best Picture in 1998. Stars Joseph Fiennes and Gwyneth Paltrow as the romantic partners William Shakespeare and his Muse, with Dame Judi Dench as Queen Elizabeth I. This is a lush film to look at in many respects. The authentic period costumes is a nice touch. The film is mostly set in the theatre of Shakespeare's day. At this time, there were no female actresses. Only men were involved in theatre. Men played the role of women. Nowadays, it's twisted to think the first Romeo and Juliet were two men. The movie has no accuracy or truth to actual historic account. William Shakespeare was never romantically linked to the character Gwyneth Paltrow plays. The whole thing is a fictionalized, dramatic melodrama that never took place. William Shakespeare was married to Anne Hathaway but there is evidence he was unfaithful and loved the Jewish keyboard player "Dark Lady" of whom he writes about in his sonnets. The movie is merely Hollywood taking on Shakespeare and it has since been used in English courses throughout the US. Shakespeare is enacted by Joseph Fiennes who is doing a terrific job. However, I don't much care for Gwyneth Paltrow's performance, no matter how much Oscar appeal she was said to circulate. She comes off as pretty wooden and the typical romantic heroine straight out of a bodice ripper, romantic novel. All she does is fall in love for Shakespeare and even goes to the lengths of dressing as a man to be near him during production of Romeo and Juliet. Judi Dench, a sublime actress though she is, does not LOOK anything like the real Queen Elizabeth. They could have cast an actress who looked the part more truthfully. Judi Dench did a better job as England's Queen Victoria in the movie "Mrs. Brown". She looked exactly like her and her fastidious, overly refined manners were distinctly Victorian. And one last thing, Ben Affleck had no place in this film. Did he think he would win an Oscar too or some form of recognition ? Ben Affleck is not right for this movie, no matter how small the role. It just seemed out of place and I would have preferred to see a true Shakespearean legend in this movie like Sir Ian McKellen. But it's a movie that has a unique charm. The music is also very beautiful. Be sure and get the soundtrack if you really liked the music for this movie.

A Fun But Flawed Flick:
Shakespeare in Love is a lot of fun to watch. However, it is also flawed. There are major inaccuracies in it. For instance, if a troop of players did a play for Queen Elizabeth I of England, it was a special performance at the palace only for the queen and her entourage. This movie would have you believe that the queen would actually sit with the common folk at the Globe Theater. I give it 4 stars out of 5 possible. There really was no reason why the filmmakers could not have both made a historically accurate film that was also a lot of fun.