Why this film is so lowly rated on IMDb, I don't know. It is one of my favorite films of all time, and this comes from a guy who, has acted in a lot of Shakespeare.
What disappoints me about the study of Shakespeare is how narrowly the "traditionalists" have boxed him into an acceptable academic definition. Their knowledge, while expansive, still confines them into a incestuous body of research wherein one source feeds upon another ad infinitum.
I prefer the broader approach taken by this film — from one of the most marvelously crafted screenplays ever — portraying Shakespeare as almost an accidental genius. And yes, the world has experienced many.
I haven't read all the comments on the film but can only assume that those who dislike it do so because it challenges the status quo of the Shakespeare myth and canon. Yet Shakespeare IN LOVE is not meant to be history: It's meant to be entertainment.
And this is what Shakespeare would have wanted.
What disappoints me about the study of Shakespeare is how narrowly the "traditionalists" have boxed him into an acceptable academic definition. Their knowledge, while expansive, still confines them into a incestuous body of research wherein one source feeds upon another ad infinitum.
I prefer the broader approach taken by this film — from one of the most marvelously crafted screenplays ever — portraying Shakespeare as almost an accidental genius. And yes, the world has experienced many.
I haven't read all the comments on the film but can only assume that those who dislike it do so because it challenges the status quo of the Shakespeare myth and canon. Yet Shakespeare IN LOVE is not meant to be history: It's meant to be entertainment.
And this is what Shakespeare would have wanted.