Shakespeare as a Real Man in Shakespeare in Love
Shakespeare has been presented in myriad versions, from the traditional to the almost unrecognizable. Directors and actors have adapted him as long as his plays have been performed. Some feel that without Shakespeare┬┤s original poetry, audiences are robbed of the opportunity to experience the cleverness, poetry, and majesty of the language ÔÇô Shakespeare┬┤s genius. Others feel that modern adaptations don┬┤t challenge viewers and offer weaker plots and less complex characters. Shakespeare in Love combines in a way both. The film applauds the brilliance of Shakespearean writing through the lines directly taken from Shakespeare, while at the same time exploring a fictional depiction of his true love and life. When you deconstruct the script, Shakespeare in Love is built in perfect Shakespearian form. Virtually a Shakespearean plot in itself, it mixes a great story with bits and pieces of history (whether fact or not); lies and deception; mistaken identities; a couple of swordfights; and of course a passion that can only end badly.
For hundreds of years we have been hunted by the question: ÔÇťWho was the real Shakespeare?ÔÇŁ Literally thousands of pages have been dedicated to uncovering the facts about Shakespeare┬┤s identity, but even after years of debate, no one truly knows the answer to the question. The mystery of the authorship of Shakespeare┬┤s thirty-seven plays, 154 sonnets and two long poems remains unsolved, and people have been arguing for centuries about his identity (The Shakespeare Question).
The purists take up one side of the debate: they are convinced the orthodox view of Shakespeare┬┤s life is correct. They believe William Shakespeare was the son of an illiterate glove-maker from Stratford Upon Avon, who in his lifetime managed to become both an actor and a playwright. The Anti-Stratfordians take up the other side of the debate: they insist that ...