Garber, Marjorie. "Romeo and Juliet: The Untimeliness of Youth." Shakespeare and Modern Culture. Print.

“It is not the case that Shakespeare was an average playwright who suddenly became a great one. And it is certainly not the case that some life-changing external event, even falling in love, switched gears on his writing and permitted him to become himself” (34) “In Norman and Stoppard‟s film, which based the „love story‟ of the playwright on the plot of Romeo and Juliet, that play – and its supposedly „real‟ inspiration – is the turning point. For many traditional critics of Shakespeare, however, Romeo and Juliet has remained in a kind of neutral zone called „the early tragedies‟ and set off clearly from „the mature tragedies‟” (38).

Keevak, Michael. "Shakespeare in Love: An Idiot's Guide." Sexual Shakespeare. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 2001. Print. “But since Shakespeare himself is a rather academic subject for most audiences, it is surprising to see the film capturing the public‟s imagination to such a degree” (115) “The film goes to great lengths to create an authentic „Elizabethan‟ setting, filled with names, places, and dates otherwise encountered only in an undergraduate lecture course” (115). “Distinctly devoid of sexual connotation or erotic innuendo” (116). “Everything is soon overshadowed by the film‟s „trick‟ of a woman in disguise as a boy rather than the other way around” (116). “The film is careful to show us male actors simply wearing dresses rather than men in drag, even this happens to accord quite well with contemporary Elizabethan practice, where boy players were hardly supposed to fool the audience into thinking that they were „really women‟” (117). “„Stage love will never be true love while the law of the land has our heroines played by pipsqueak boys in petticoats!‟ (SIL, 20)” (117). “The film is quite self-conscious about many of its fictions, and indeed that it is also meant to be a parody of the (lack of) Shakespearean biography and the theatrical milieu in which his plays were written and performed” (118). “The sonnets are all presented in a specifically heterosexual context and accompanied by still photographs from the film” (119). “There are also some nice in-jokes regarding long-standing Shakespearean controversies, such as our first glimpse of Will practicing his signature in a variety of different spellings

Yet the filmmakers also put a lot of effort into creating an authentic period look for the film: most of the costumes are exquisitely detailed. I.‟” (26). which may or may not be intentional: 1593 seems a bit early for Romeo and Juliet. The screenplay is likewise full of scrupulous research about Shakespeare‟s life and works. who operates both in his historical context and out of it. When we consider these two aspects of the film. The story also contains a few inaccuracies. 2001. enabling us to „understand‟ the works by bringing them to a level that we already know. London: Pluto. This dialectic is predicated upon audience awareness of Shakespeare and his works. Deborah Cartmell. Retrovisions: Reinventing the Past in Film and Fiction. as if one should never want to get beyond the world of the chat room or the strip mall” (120). and Imelda Whelehan. brining Shakespeare down to earth and setting him up on a pedestal. and the settings include full-scale recreations of the Rose and Curtain theaters. which include Will‟s punkish leather doublet and the psychoanalytic styling of his astrologer. 68)” (119). may not possess the requisite cultural capital” (27). I would argue that it largely succeeds. “This implies that there is a measure of social pressure in going to see this film: some viewers. ." Ed. whose training allows them to recognize the „injokes‟ that pepper the dialogue and situations” (26). Print. these articles warn. Q. and upon the dearth of biographical data on Shakespeare‟s life. it becomes evident that Shakespeare in Love is creating a dialectical relationship between past and present. Klett. "Shakespeare in Love and the End(s) of History. “These volumes are intent only on reducing Shakespeare to pop culture norms and idioms and buzzwords.(SIL 5). like the film itself” (27-28). “Yet I would argue that „durable public value‟ ensures „commercial profit. due to the skillful way screenwriters Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard construct Shakespeare‟s character. Hunter. or Viola‟s clever anti-Stratfordian joke before she and Will make love for the first time: „Answer me only this: are you the author of the plays of William Shakespeare?‟ (SIL. “The film wants to have it both ways. anachronism and accuracy. The result is a virtual palimpsest of texts and contexts” (2526). “The film has been criticized for appealing too much to a certain (tiny) segment of the population: Shakespearean scholars.‟ and vice versa” (26). “The film is full of such anachronisms. “Madden‟s mission: „I always felt that it had the power to reach an extraordinarily wide demographic – everyone from groundlings to royalty. Elizabeth.

California. in the manner of the very successful movie about Mozart. Norman came to see me in Berkeley. „„No dice. Print. “„Rewriting the Real‟: Popular Shakespeare in the 1990s. proving that he is not just for an age. 1052-72. Will is reborn as the ultimate culturally accessible icon. Thompson. as it becomes clear that he is writing the story of their relationship” (31). „robustly heterosexual‟” (34). (1063-4) “The sexual intrigue that Greenblatt offers („Why not have Shakespeare. Once again. “The lines in his script have double meanings for them. and funny. Amadeus. Norman replied. have an affair with Marlowe‟) becomes the tame and inoffensive love between a man of the lowering class and a woman of the aspirant class. „„Mr. sexy. took me to lunch and said he wanted to write a screenplay about Shakespeare. not their genders or their sexuality” (1065). whose sexuality was ambiguous.. in Chris Peachment‟s words. Greenblatt apparently suggested that Shakespeare‟s life was not particularly „„cinematic. no.‟‟ unless one focused on the „„lost years‟‟ just „„after he left Stratford and before he became fully established in the London theater world‟‟ (Greenblatt 1999: A15). “In order to appeal to the widest possible audience. Needless to say. the class difference between Viola de Lesseps and young Will Shakespeare is the major factor separating their heterosexual union. In response. but for our time” (37). Then he proceeded to offer two types of plots: oneinvolving political and religious intrigue („„I was imagining some. passionate.40.” Journal of Popular Culture. Shakespeare of Stratford is due to his apparently dull and colourless life” (29). heterosexual. Ayanna. the filmmakers had to negate Shakespeare‟s probable bisexuality and make him. In reality. “The film is clearly drawing on the legacy of the Chandos portrait‟s romanticized image of Shakespeare. creating the myth that Shakespeare‟s plays were inspired by a flesh-and-blood muse.“The other major factor in denying authorship to Mr.6 (2007). we know for a fact that Shakespeare adapted all of his plots from other sources” (37). . economics helps to level the rough terrain of a critical/academic reading of the plot. Greenblatt writes. one which accords with his talents and with his extravagantly passionate love life as played out on screen” (33).. He asked me what in Shakespeare‟s life might make a good plot‟‟ („„About that Romantic Sonnet‟‟ A15). “Authentic. “This is perhaps the greatest ahistorical move that Norman and Stoppard make. .thing like the plot of Elizabeth‟‟) and the other involving a homosexual affair between Marlowe and Shakespeare in which Marlowe‟s death helps inspire/free Shakespeare‟s creative genius. No studio would buy it‟‟ (A15). “This brief scene dramatizes current scholarly views on the prevalence of collaboration in Elizabethan theatre” (30).

Fredric. Moth (Antony Sher). Print. Will unknowingly employs a vocabulary of sexual dysfunction designed to elicit recognition in a contemporary audience: "It's as if my quill is broken. and England‟s Renaissance theatres (plays put on in the broad daylight. Todd F.” Jameson.“The viewer is meant to be dazzled by the realness of the Renaissance dirt (small animal laden streets. like Branagh and Bloom. an obvious precursor to the Freudian psychoanalysts of the present. “The word remake is. […] Rather than producing disjunction in the narrative. with the theatres on the wrong side of the Thames). As if the proud tower of my genius has collapsed" (10).32 (2004): 153-62. Thus. Or. few viewers could possibly fail to perceive the filmmakers' various references to the plots of Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet. however. in which the history of aesthetic styles displaces „real‟ history. Print. for example. The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. the creators of Shakespeare in Love are careful to transpose the „real‟ to „reality‟” (1065). in „intertextuality‟ as a deliberate. anachronistic to the degree to which our awareness of the preexistence of other versions (previous films of the novel as well as the novel itself) is now a constitutive and essential part of the film‟s structure: we are now.don‟s Renaissance layout (winding roads.” “By providing the audience with a sense of familiarity in the film. While confessing his sense of impotence as a writer to his Renaissance-era therapist. with the audience so close you can touch them). Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) seeks treatment from Dr.” . 1991.” Literature/Film Quarterly. Shakespeare in Love's anachronisms establish a textual bridge between the film's contemporary audience and the mock-Elizabethan past that functions as its setting. As if the organ of the imagination has dried up. Durham: Duke UP. Davis. in other words. Postmodernism. allowing us actually to witness greatness in progress” (1066). In an early scene. Lon. with refuse being tossed out of windows). “Reading (and Writing) the Ethics of Authorship: Shakespeare in Love as Postmodern Metanarrative. such anachronistic moments invariably supply viewers with a system of cultural referents that transform Shakespeare in Love's otherwise alien Elizabethan locale into an immediately recognizable urban landscape. “Shakespeare in Love is meant to celebrate Bardolatry in a palpable fashion. built-in feature of the aesthetic effect and as the operator of a new connotation of „pastness‟ and pseudohistorical depth. “While audience members clearly enjoy different levels of intertextual awareness.

.:343 34990703/0784790780:.947805..3/4:3$.9     ./3419054990 ..708902.70./0088058..939070907480:.0850.7.47 1.0-09003'4.88/110703./02..

/8 99090. .9.9708 5.8!48924/07309...3/442 90.9:70.70.38548090 70.0.3.084.-01.90.394:.00-7.3994-0/. 94 70.0850.3/3.0.43:8 .973.7034.0850.3/793 909.85:943390-74..%0.3/ 8 #03.3.701:9497.3994.843 .//.0/-9070.5.7/4.4804: .70 .090.7034.0 907.949308870./3 .208 .3.:/03.0.0820.007820.0/79 82.9 990.902 %:8 07.970843907438/04190%.88.8 %4//  #0..703 4.9:.841:94785$.32.3.5.4:9 3/374.9308835747088      .30884190#03.88.0850.947841$..3.9     $..77./038970098 9701:80-0394880/4:9413/48 43 /43 8#03.88.

899.4:7.43902547.9:704190.589 :334302548.743828089.7.-8.0.-:.34-.74389.4.34.-8:55.:/03.. 7907948#03..03..82  :7.89880993   .9..3/580:/48947.431088388038041254903.70 4805 03308 8008970..09 8.90.703088 10 .0414907.4:8570.3/9024.8/70/:5 8190574:/9407412 03:8.43349. 24203983.5.09801 8 34.0850.3574/:.74389.0078.9079.94507.3./390.7034.4.3.50 3.:/03.08413907909:.91:3.59.8126: 8-7403 819047.9.3/8:3.0.381472 $.090122.3.08909.9490/070094..94741.0  $. /81:3.30.3/:09.0394.7034.358.3/.0.80./0-07.0850.43902547.08 40.00789..7.3220/.7034/11070390.3.89841905708039 0.7034 3490747/8  3 3907909:.3.7010703989.43.:/03.943/0830/940.4.9 .74180:.3.79419012 8897:./059 3.3/..0202-078.3/088039. !48924/07382  7 %0:9:7. 8947  .3.2:0&!  !739  %047/702.-09.7..4:8128419034.8908/85.909:.4:/5488-1.8.94341 5.:/03..-09.8890241.9203917427 49 3943$07 ..580/   (#.:9:7.35.41.997.78..89034..77.2..907.9:700.078438 570.250 $.0110.88.7907       !739  0.893088 .0 8490780.030 1470.90 -:9 310.8..90 70..890 4507.7939012 8:.80380411.4.3/8.7030884190 57008903.209  574.90 894741.-0:7-.0 07.08909.078 .07 .74:87010703.:78479490 70:/.943.30.341902.0.439433.9433903.0850.20843 70/7.-7/0-090039012 8 ..0 8.089490549841 #4204.0.8.09.970.08 70.43899:9. .2":.9438.0.