< previous page | page_12 | next page > |
Page 12 moment of nudity, has become a school staple in the U.S. In one of the film’s cleverest scenes, Viola and Shakespeare meet at her balcony to parody not just the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet, but specifically Zeffirelli’s staging of the scene. Shakespeare in Love offers a useful lesson in literary influence. In a puckish nod to Anti-Stratfordian zealots, we see that everyone, from Christopher Marlowe to the lovely Viola herself, writes Shakespeare’s plays for him. Worse, the immortal Bard’s beauties go through the same kind of painful revision that every student’s essay must undergo. The first draft of Romeo and Juliet’s farewell includes, after all, the anguished exchange: “It is the rooster. No, it is the owl” (parodying Romeo and Juliet 3.5.1–35). Finally, we see Shakespeare creating ex nihilo the worst of clichés when, after the boy actor who plays Juliet can no longer voice the part, Philip Henslowe counsels Shakespeare: “The show must…you know.…” “Go on!” is Shakespeare’s profound rejoinder. The small-time Shakespeare show also goes on. Terence Hawkes (1992), in a misunderstood phrase, says that Shakespeare does not mean; rather, “we mean by Shakespeare” (1992:3). The point is not that Shakespeare has no meaning, but that because meaning changes with context, he has, if anything, more meanings than we can yet imagine. If big-time Shakespeare is in decline, his plays will continue to provide occasions for the impersonations and improvisations of small-time Shakespeare. Shakespeare in Love is not a radical film. Next to the intense responses to Shakespeare of a Paul Robeson, a Gloria Naylor, a Robert Browning, or a Sarah Siddons, it will seem trivial. But the film does remind us that culture is not sacrosanct. Playing (around with) Shakespeare can still be done for fun, as well as for profit. |
||
< previous page | page_12 | next page > |