Not much truth in Shakespeare in Love

By KATHRYN GRAHAM
Collegian Staff Writer

"Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?"

Joseph Fiennes, playing the world's favorite bard, William Shakespeare, has no trouble writing those poetic words to his inspiration, Viola De Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow) in this year's smash hit Shakespeare in Love. What's most striking is De Lesseps didn't really exist.

Not only is Paltrow's character fictional, but the film has numerous other inaccuracies leading the audience astray from history. One of the harder plot lines to believe is Shakespeare's most famous love story, Romeo and Juliet, is based on a love that didn't quite exist.

"You have to have a willing suspension of disbelief for this movie," said Don-John Dugas, lecturer of English.

Willing or not, audiences are ready to believe in the love affair between Shakespeare and De Lesseps even if it is pure imagination.

"It isn't meant to be an accurate portrayal of Shakespeare's life," Lauren Bailey (sophomore-political science) said. "It is meant to be more of a tribute."

This "tribute" centers on the making of Romeo and Juliet, taking place in 1593. Poor Will Shakespeare has a tough case of writers' block.

His luck changes when he meets De Lesseps, who first dresses as a man to perform in Shakespeare's "new" play, Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter. When Shakespeare realizes it's Paltrow under that boy's wig, one of the world's most famous love stories gets a new title and earns immortality. Too bad it isn't true.

Even if Shakespeare's life may not be depicted truthfully in this film, it treats his work with the same respect it has been afforded over the centuries.

"Shakespeare in Love was able to portray the fact that what Shakespeare writes about is the epitome of truth in life," Kate Farrand (sophomore-theater) said.

Truth doesn't necessarily take a heavy role in this script, written by Tom Stoppard and Marc Norman. Stoppard is best known for his Shakespeare-inspired play/movie, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.

Stoppard, using his Shakespeare knowledge, incorporates many facts known about Shakespeare, but also he manages to stretch the truth.

First of all, Christopher Marlowe, one of England's leading playwrights, did not "help" Shakespeare with Romeo and Juliet. They were adversaries, competing for the same jobs.

Secondly, women would not have been accepted on the stage. Paltrow would not have been allowed to play the doomed Juliet. In Love, the audience lets go of its stereotypes and permits her to continue. Audiences in Shakespeare's time would have been armed and ready with tomatoes and other vegetables.

Some of the accurate features involve Ben Affleck's egotistical character, Ned Alleyn. Alleyn was a real actor in the late 1500s who had a lot of staying power.The theater where Romeo and Juliet is performed near the end of the movie also is realistic. Theaters in Shakespeare's day were of the open-air variety, with sections for sitting and standing and a single small stage.

Evidently, audiences don't really care if Viola De Lesseps was real or not -- the film has grossed $36.1 million in nine weeks.

In the end, it is a simple movie about love, betrayal and conflict.

Just like something Shakespeare would have written.