Talk:Shakespeare in Love

No heading

Can anyone explain or know the reason why Rupert Everett is not credited for his portrayal of the role of KIT MARLOW???

I'd been wondering about that too. Why WASN't Rupert Everett credited for his performance???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.218.236.93 (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know that too. Furthermore i think that the synopsis is rather short. The article is almost a stub.

The chronology explained by the quote "for instance, the colonization of North America by the English did not begin until 1584 and Romeo and Juliet was largely written by 1596 or 1597" seems not to be inconsistent with the plot of the movie. Either a different example of inconsistency was given, or more evidence should be given to show that there could have been no colonization of North America at the time when the movie is set.

INCOMPLETE ?

All the awards are really unneccesary, but what about the plot or a detailed summary ? even an interpretation or analysis and a hint to the book, that appeared in stores some years ago would be nice!

• I did my best to expand the References to Shakespeare's Work section, but it has been deleted. 24.235.251.230 02:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added a synopsis section. Let me go ahead and admit it up front: it is LOOOONG. It is a 137 minute long movie, and the plot is a bit complex. It seems that whenever I tried to edit out a detail, it made something else not make sense. Lets call this a first draft, and if anybody can tighten it up, I think we'd all be grateful. Kjdamrau 06:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Ken Damrau

Dude, you've almost written the screenplay out! I've started hacking it, but it'll take a while. Cop 663 11:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that it would be easier to work with starting with a lot of detail and sculpting it down, rather than trying to "sculpt it up" so to speak. The work you've done looks very good. I spent a few minutes on it today, mostly just taking out obviously extraneous details. Hopefully, working together, we can come up with something wiki-worthy. Thanks. Kjdamrau 03:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Kjdamrau

A synopsis that covers all the plot's complexities? I had the same problem when I tried - it ends up as long as the film!

A good idea would be to leave out all the little things that would spoil the film for a first time viewer. For example, the poster used to advertise Romeo And Juliet in the film is a throwaawy joke; it makes no more sense to include it in a synopsis than it would to include a description of Shakespeare's 'Present from Stratford upon Avon' mug.

Similarly, the subtle points of character and interaction can be left out. You enjoy them when you are watching the film, but not when you are reading a synopsis. Also, when you read them in a synopsis, they lose the subtlety and balance that they have when watching the film.

Tell you what, here's my synopsis, around 900 words (Ken's is nearer 3,000). How's it grab you?

London in 1593. The theatre is a precarious and insecure profession, not helped by Royal sanctions and The Plague. In addition to these general frustrations, William Shakespeare is afflicted by a lack of inspiration, recognition, patronage and money.

Viola De Lesseps, a nubile young woman with rich parents, is an ardent theatregoer with a consuming love of poetry - particularly Shakespeare’s. Even though women were not permitted on stage in Elizabethan England (female roles were performed by men), Viola is carried away by naive daydreams of an acting career. She disguises herself as a young man, ‘Thomas Kent’, and auditions for Shakespeare’s newest play by reciting some of his romantic verse.

Shakespeare is excited by Kent’s performance and demands a closer look at him. But Viola flees, worried her disguise won’t survive close inspection. Shakespeare pursues ‘him’ all the way to the De Lesseps house. Determined to persuade Kent to play Romeo, Will sneaks in amongst a band of musicians hired for a ball that night.

During the ball Will is simultaneously love-struck and struck-dumb by Viola, but is chased away by Lord Wessex. Wessex has negotiated to marry Viola (unknown to her) by offering his noble family name in return for De Lesseps’ money. Undeterred by Wessex’s threats, Will waits outside until Viola appears on her bedroom balcony. Viola responds willingly to Shakespeare’s wooing, her heart having already been partly won-over by the poetry in his plays.

Inspired by his surge of desire for Viola, Will rapidly writes the romantic opening scenes of his new comedy. He also composes a sonnet (“Shall I compare thee to a Summer’s day, …”), and enlists Kent as a go-between to deliver it to Viola. Viola is enraptured by Will’s poem, and almost completely swept off her feet.

Will interrogates Kent about Viola’s reaction to the sonnet. Viola takes advantage of her disguise to check Will’s true intentions. She presumes that, if Will is genuinely motivated by love, then whatever he tells Kent will be consistent with what he already told Viola. At the very least, Thomas Kent is in a better position than Viola to find out – are Shakespeare’s declarations sincere, or is he just trying to get into Viola’s knickers?

Moments after Viola is convinced of Shakespeare’s true love, Shakespeare learns Kent’s true identity. He steals into Viola’s bedroom; they consummate their love many times that night, and consummate it many more times on following nights. Will begins to express the veracity of their love in the scenes he writes each day. The quality of his writing gradually wins the approval of the theatre troupe.

Unfortunately, a menacing shadow is cast over Will and Viola’s future, by Viola’s impending arranged marriage to Lord Wessex and Shakespeare’s existing marriage to Anne Hathaway. Shakespeare’s play (by now re-titled Romeo And Juliet) starts to turn away from lightness and comedy towards darkness and tragedy. When Thomas Kent is exposed as a woman, and Shakespeare’s theatre closed as a consequence, Romeo And Juliet seems doomed. Likewise, “Will and Viola” seem destined for heartbreak.

But instead of breaking the love between Will & Viola, the forces trying to pull them apart seem to tighten the bond between them. Unlike Romeo and Juliet, who each choose death rather than life without the other, both Will and Viola prefer that the other should live; they choose to sacrifice their happiness rather than their lives.

Romeo And Juliet is rescued by a rival theatre company, in an act of defiance against a common enemy. Likewise, Viola defies her unloved new husband in order to attend the premiere. Fate, that took away Viola’s chance of playing Romeo (that part is taken over by Shakespeare), suddenly offers Viola the chance to play Juliet. Viola jumps at the chance.

And in one, glorious performance, Viola De Lesseps lives her impossible dream of performing on stage; in a play that embodies everything she loves about theatre, a play she knows expresses true love because it portrays her own, and a play that enshrines Will Shakespeare as the poet of the truth and nature of love.

Unhappily, the love between Viola & Will must be thwarted - when religion, duty and Royal command force Viola to depart with Wessex. Though Queen Elizabeth acknowledges the sorrow and suffering of a woman in a man’s profession, she admits that not even Royalty can defy God’s law.

The Queen commands a more cheerful play, and the film ends with Shakespeare composing Twelfth Night. It is a story about a woman with a spirit and soul more powerful than the ocean. Compelled to begin a new life disguised as a boy, she rises to acclaim among the best of men, possessed of outstanding loyalty and good judgement, yet retains the virtue, sympathies and boundless love of a woman.

Shakespeare describes her as his ‘Heroine for all time’; and he names her - Viola.

Sante Sangre 02:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Second version, over 300 unnecessary words brutally expurgated, without mercy or regret!

London, 1593

The theatre is a precarious and insecure profession, not helped by Royal sanctions or the Plague. And William Shakespeare is suffering from a lack of inspiration, recognition, and money.

Viola De Lesseps, a nubile young lady from a wealthy family, is an ardent theatregoer with a consuming passion for the poetry of true love. She resolves to bring poetry and romance into her life by pursuing an acting career. But in Elizabethan England women were not allowed on stage, and female roles were performed by men. So Viola disguises herself as a boy, ‘Thomas Kent’, and auditions for a part in Shakespeare’s new play. Will is impressed and wants a closer look at Kent before giving him the part of Romeo; but Viola runs away because her disguise would not survive close inspection.

Shakespeare pursues Viola all the way to the De Lesseps house, and leaves a letter offering the part of Romeo to Thomas Kent. He sneaks inside among a band of musicians hired for a ball. When he sees Viola (as Viola) he is love-struck and struck-dumb, but is thrown out by her suitor Lord Wessex. Will waits outside until Viola appears on her balcony; he woos her and she responds favourably.

Inspired by Viola, Will easily produces the opening scenes of his new comedy. He composes a romantic sonnet for Viola and gets Kent to deliver it to Viola. Viola is completely bowled-over by the poem. Will questions Kent about Viola’s reactions; and Viola exploits her disguise to confirm that Shakespeare’s true feelings match his poetry.

Will discovers Kent’s real identity and climbs up to Viola's bedroom. They make love all night, and every subsequent night. He starts to express their love in the scenes he writes during the day; the quality of his verse gradually winning the support of the theatre troupe.

But Will is already married, and Viola’s family have contracted her to marry the impoverished Lord Wessex and go to America. Events conspire to threaten Will and Viola’s happiness, while underlining the strength of their love. Shakespeare’s play starts turning away from comedy towards tragedy.

When Thomas Kent is revealed as a woman, the theatre is closed. Both Romeo And Juliet and Viola’s stage career are finished before they have begun, and Viola unhappily accepts her fate with Lord Wessex. Then Romeo And Juliet is rescued by a rival theatre company, and Viola runs away from her new husband to attend the premiere.

Fate hands Viola the opportunity to play Juliet, with Shakespeare playing Romeo. For one triumphant performance Viola realises her dream of acting on stage in a play that shows the very truth and nature of love – her own love. During the ovation Viola’s gender is almost exposed again, but the company is saved from arrest by Queen Elizabeth, who readily sympathises with a woman in a man’s profession.

However, nobody can rescue Viola from her role as Lady Wessex. When Viola and Will say their final farewell she urges him to keep writing for her, then they part forever.

The film ends with Shakespeare composing Twelfth Night. It is a story of a woman disguised as a boy to survive and make her way in the world. She prospers as both man and woman thanks to her wit, virtue, and boundless love. Shakespeare declares she will be his heroine for all time, and names her Viola.

Comments/criticisms/suggestions welcome of course. Sante Sangre 01:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Third version! Another 200+ words banished to Room 101. It is now about a tenth the length of Ken's synopsis. I ought to get paid for this.

In 1593 William Shakespeare is suffering from a lack of inspiration.

Viola De Lesseps is an ardent young theatergoer, determined to pursue an acting career. But women were not allowed on stage so Viola disguises herself as a boy, ‘Thomas Kent’, and earns the part of Romeo in Shakespeare’s next play.

Shakespeare meets and falls in love with Viola, not realizing she is Thomas Kent. He writes the opening scenes of his new comedy and composes a romantic sonnet to Viola. Kent, acting as go-between, questions Shakespeare about his true feelings, and Shakespeare learns Kent's real identity. Will and Viola begin a passionate love affair that inspires the poetry of Romeo And Juliet.

But Viola is promised in marriage to Lord Wessex, who intends taking her to America. Will and Viola’s love is threatened even as it grows, reflected by Romeo And Juliet turning away from comedy towards tragedy.

When Thomas Kent is revealed to be a woman, the theatre is closed. Viola’s stage career is finished before it has begun, and she unhappily accepts her fate with Lord Wessex. But when Romeo And Juliet is rescued by another theatre, Viola runs away from her new husband to attend the premiere. Fate hands Viola the opportunity to play Juliet opposite Shakespeare as Romeo; she realises her dream of acting in a play that shows the very truth and nature of love, albeit for only one triumphant performance. Viola's gender is almost exposed again, but the company is saved from arrest by Queen Elizabeth, who sympathises with a woman in a man’s profession.

However, nobody can rescue Viola from her role as Lady Wessex. She says her final farewell by urging Will to keep writing for her sake, and they part forever. Shakespeare starts writing Twelfth Night, about a woman disguised as a boy to make her way in the world, who prospers thanks to her wit, virtue, and boundless love. Shakespeare says she will be his heroine for all time, and names her Viola.

Sante Sangre 15:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If no objections appear in the next month or so, I'm going to put my synopsis on the main page, and paste Ken Damrau's here. Sante Sangre 22:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Queen Mab's speech

Is Mercutio's Queen Mab speech regarded the longest speech in Shakespeare? It's only 43 lines whereas Berowne's speech from Love's Labours Lost, Act Four, Scene iii l. 285, is 76 lines long. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.43.204 (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

• I agree. I'd normally slap a {fact} tag on that, but given that it seems very unlikely to me that Queen Mab is Shakespeare's longest speech I've removed the paragraph (but without prejudice to restoration by someone who can source it). AndyJones 10:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Summary

A summary does not exist. If somebody has seen the movie or is knowledgeable about it, can you please include one Canking 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Geoffrey Rush

I recently watched the movie again, and every time Geoffrey Rush's character clamored for pirates and a dog to be included in the supposed comedy that Shakespeare was to have been writing I chuckled. Subustitue monkey for dog and there's a bit of odd ironic humor in that isn't there? Not to mention that the whole Pirates franchise has great debt to Shakespearian plot devices etc.

Title

A bit of trivia about that title that I wonder if should be included:

The title of the movie is originally the title of a play by Dion Boucicault (the play which I believe is not extant), but is also referenced in the play Two Shakespearean Gentlemen by Richard Nelson, which premiered at The Royal Shakespeare Company, London (in the play the context is that Boucicault is writing Shakespeare in love over the course of the play). While Boucicault's play has no relation to the movie, Stoppard, knowing this, surely lifted the title. Liontamarin 20:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Stoppard didn't invent the title. The film was knocking around Hollywood for many years before he began work on it. Cop 663 11:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary

In my opinion the plot summary, currently 500 words, isn't excessively long. I've removed the {{plot}} tag. --Tony Sidaway 05:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually seems that it was shortened a week or so ago in this edit. --Tony Sidaway 05:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Classification?

I added 'drama' to its classification, if only because classifying it as only a "romantic comedy" brings about the stereotypes along with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.120.179 (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Viola de Lesseps not "a noblewoman".

I have the film on tape and have watched it far too many times. The film makes clear that Viola is not "a noblewoman", i.e., of noble birth, but rather the daughter of a rich merchant. "Not so well-born", she tells her nurse, who replies, "well-moneyed is as good as well-born." Indeed, her father pays Lord Wessex, who is broke, to marry her and presumably further ingratiate himself to the noble class. "Your father has bought me for you", Wessex tells Viola. Also note that Viola is well-known to the boatman - "Known her since she was this high." Noblewomen were not on such casual terms with lowly boatmen.

I'll view it again to confirm Viola's social status before recommending any edits to the synopsis.

Rico402 (talk) 07:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've recently viewed the film again on DVD, and within it is made quite clear that the de Lesseps are not nobles, a point director John Madden also makes clear in his commentary. Viola's father's aim in paying Wessex to marry Viola is essentially to buy his way into the nobility.

I'll make the necessary edits in due course.

Rico402 (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Script Theft

"Shakespeare In love" is based on an original 5 act stageplay written in 1984 entitled "As You Might Like It" by Michael M. Peters and also a 60 page treatment entitled "The Dark Lady" by Don Ethan Miller and Peter Hassinger. A copy of "As You Might Like It" is in the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C. and the legal briefs are filed under Peters vs. Disney, Miramax et al. in United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, in Sacramento, No. CIV S-01-2362 MCE JFM PS. Miller's copyright infringement case was filed in United States District Court in Los Angeles. These legal papers are a matter of public record. TO EXPLAIN: There is virtually no copyright protection. The FBI has not been given a budget to go after script thieves--and Federal Court judges refuse to uphold what little copyright law there is because of a body of law passed by a Justice Field in the latter part of the 1800's which says that THE INTERESTS OF CORPORATIONS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS. (Writers don't stand a chance against big movie companies.) Currently all a script thief has to do is make cosmetic changes in the script to evade copyright infringement. Note: Peters' stageplay was written based on his own experiences in the theatre and film world (he has two degrees in theatre, has taught at Cal Arts in Valencia, Calif. and has acted in an Equity production of "Romeo and Juliet" in Santa Barbara in 1977). His script was written in Red Bluff, Calif., where he also built a theatre at his old high school, causing the dropout rate there to plunge 15%. He wrote the stageplay one act at a time, without a plot, as a Moliere type of farce. He has had several scripts stolen from him and is actually owed TWO Oscars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.68.12 (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

So, did Peters in turn pinch it from No Bed for Bacon, written 1948, or is this coincidence? --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Who says writers don't stand a chance? Didn't Art Buchwald successfully sue Paramount over "Coming To America"? 99.228.255.154 (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Peters had not read "No Bed For Bacon" (1941, not 1948) when he wrote "As You Might Like It" in 1984 but has read "No Bed For Bacon" since the movie came out and agrees that material from "No Bed For Bacon" was used in "Shakespeare In Love". Script thieves will not just steal from one source, but from many sources. Peters based his script solely on his personal experiences in the theatre. He is a disabled Vietnam Veteran and finds it abhorrent that people would steal from disabled American veterans. He was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation, the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with Combat "V" for Valour and four Vietnam Cross of Gallantry Unit Citations and considers any one of them more important than his Oscar which he has not yet received (it took 27 years for Carl Foreman and Michael Wilson to posthumously receive their Oscars for "Bridge On The River Kwai"--Pierre Boulle had never written anything in English in his life, that's how Absurdist the Academy is). Peters is currently living in poverty on his military pension and is 62 years old.71.154.158.137 (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right: it was 1941: sorry. So, if Peters agrees that the theft was from NBFB, what's his beef?--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Marc Norman's son Zack stole Peters' play from him when Peters was teaching at Cal Arts around 1988 (Peters entered the play for an in-house production at Cal Arts and Zack crashed the private campus)--this is all annotated in the legal briefs which are in the public domain. Much of Peters' play "As You Might Like It" was used in the movie, and apparently the screenwriters also used material from "No Bed For Bacon" and "The Dark Lady" as well. So the movie screenplay is a composite. I don't know what other scripts may have been drawn from for use in the screenplay, if there were others. 71.154.158.137 (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a site with a newspaper story about Peters and "Shakespeare In Love" http://www.newsreview.com/chico/content?oid=9432 under Shakespeare in court, Backbeat, May 23, 2002. Hope this provides some illumination in the darkness. 71.154.158.137 (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm presently holding in my hand a summary legal brief (condensed from a 120 page legal brief) demonstrating striking similarity between Peters' stageplay "As You Might Like It" and the movie "Shakespeare In Love". The characters are the same: Shakespeare trying to come up with a new play; his girlfriend and her prudish confidante; his rival in love, a pompous bore; Henslowe the theatre manager constantly trying to get Shakespeare to write; and so forth. The five acts of the play are the same: Shakespeare's atelier, an Elizabethan theatre, a bar, the alternate theatre where the new play opens, and back to Shakespeare's atelier. The plots are the same, and these are compared. The theme is the same, a revionistic interpretation of Shakespeare. They are both romantic comedies. There's a page of verbatim phrases and then there's 12 long pages of paraphrased dialog. Then there's several pages of noting similarities, such as both Shakespeares (in the movie and play) having a full head of hair when Shakespeare is normally portrayed as partially bald; Shakespeare writing his name on a small piece of paper; two swordfights at the theatre; the auditions; trying to come up with a title for the play; the Queen issuing that a sack of money be given to Shakespeare; Shakespeare "making out" with his girlfriend at the theatre; Shakespeare writing a poem for his girlfriend; Shakespeare having money problems; the trapdoor in the stage scene; etc., etc. It goes on and on. The interesting thing is that both the movie and the stageplay end with a mystical sea voyage. 71.157.182.121 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare Amoureux?

Is there any connection to the French play Shakespeare Amoureux, ou la Piéce a L'Etude (Shakespeare in Love) by Alexandre-Vincent Pineux Duval published in 1801 [or 1804]? Ecphora (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Mercedes Salvador Bello, in Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard 1999: Shakespeare in Love (the screenplay), Atlantis XXI (1999), states that "... Norman and/or Stoppard may have had access to the French source [Duval's Shakespeare Amoureux], either in the original version or in an English translation; at least they seem to have borrowed the title." Ecphora (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Beatrice Straight

GOM of the movies Roger Ebert agrees that Straight's screen time was less than Dench's, but he accepts a timing of 7½ minutes. (Roger Ebert's The Great Movies quoted at [1]). May we have a good, strong source for the the recent addition of 5½ minutes? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Critical reception?

Why no discussion in the article about critical reception of the film? I find this quite odd considering the multiple times I have seen critics place this film on their "worst Best Picture-winners" lists. This oversight is especially odd considering there is a section covering critical review on other of the year's Best Picture nominees, but not this one, the winner of the award. 97.127.68.87 (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, Hollywood loves movies about the theatre world--just look at "All About Eve", which was about the theatre and took home a ton of Academy Awards (it garnered 14 Oscar nominations). So while critics might disparage "Shakespeare In Love", those actually in the industry find well-made films about the theatrical world to be fascinating. Then there were the lawsuits over script theft about "Shakespeare In Love", which complicates things. Who are you going to critique when the movie script is stolen? --The original authors, the script thieves, who? It gets to be a sensitive area in Hollywood, especially when script theft in Hollywood is so rampant and a tight lid is maintained on the practice. It's a tinderbox that could erupt into flames. It's all hush-hush. You can't get anybody involved with the film to talk about it. Also, when a script theft occurence is settled, the ripped off writer typically agrees not to talk about the theft as part of the settlement. For more info on this subject, see "Wild Realm Film Reviews: Hollywood Plagiarism" on the Internet at http://www.weirdwildrealm.com/hollywoodplagiarism.html and other such sites.71.154.158.137 (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The plagiarism lawsuit mentioned in the article came to nothing, according to Ned Sherrin, and I haven't been able to find any record of its ever reaching court. However there is no reference here to Fidelis Morgan, who had already sent the producer a script based on No Bed for Bacon, but had it rejected; whether or not there was a later, secret payment Sherrin doesn't say. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently looking at a news report from Oct. 19, 2001 in The Vineyard Gazette which describes the Don Ethan Miller "The Dark Lady" copyright lawsuit at http://www.mvgazette.com/news/2001/10/19/shakespeare_in_love.php in which the judge wrote in his ruling that "a reasonable jury could find that Shakespeare In Love is substantially similar to protected elements of The Dark Lady." I remember reading that an out of court settlement had been reached some years ago but am vague on the particulars. Out of court settlements are hushed up (see above). Peters had his case bumped up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court was next after that. Rather than have his case ping-ponged between the courts for the next 10 years he decided to concentrate on getting Michael Eisner fired. Then Peters' father died of Alzheimer's and he had to take care of his 90 year old mother (who recently passed away) and he's been struggling with his own medical concerns since. He also has an invalid sister who lives in a wheelchair. Yes, I know it sounds like a Hollywood movie, but it's true. Peters was with the 561st Tactical Fighter Squadron during the Vietnam War and one of his squadron's planes was the last F-105 shot down in the Vietnam War. He's stopped writing because everything he writes gets stolen, and now he watches Alissa Czisny (the U.S. 2009 National Figure Skating Champion) ice skate. I don't have any info on the "No Bed For Bacon" case, but if anyone has info I'd like to read it. And I don't have any info on how the Faye Kellerman case wound up. 71.154.158.137 (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

To get back to the issue of lack of critique of the film, after it became known that there were copyright claims, there were no interviews, downstream marketing, spin-offs, sequels, etc. Just click on "Google Search" and you'll find nothing except the screenplay, because a "cloud" (that's the legal term for copyright claim) has been placed on "Shakespeare In Love". If they payed Peters his treatment fee, for instance, the cloud would be lifted and they could do a sequel. I remember Tom Stoppard was on the Charlie Rose show on television and Stoppard wouldn't say a word about "Shakespeare In Love". I did find an interview with Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard in the March, 1999 issue of "Written By", the magazine of the Writers Guild of America, West, before the copyright scandal broke, but little else from people who were directly involved in the film. Apparently, from what I've been able to deduce, everybody was told to shut up about the film because of the copyright infringement matter.71.154.158.137 (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I see from OCLC that Michael Peters has published a book entitled Legal brief prooving [sic] incontestably striking similarity between the original stage play "As you might like it" and the motion picture "Shakespeare in love" along with line of acquisition (OCLC 81875399), giving his side of the story. Did you say he was a teacher of English?--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Peters had sent a copy of his stageplay to the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C., 201 East Capitol Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003, phone: 202/675-0384 fax: 202/675-0328 along with a summary legal brief, where these documents reside in the archives, so I'm assuming someone may have published these. He was doing part time substitute teaching in Northern California, as stated in the Chico News & Review article, after he became disabled working at the Redding Civic Auditorium in Northern California, and had taught theatre and film at California Institute of the Arts in Southern California in the late 1980's, as stated in the article. In California, if you substitute teach you end up teaching every subject under the sun. He's quite literate, having written many theatrical reviews for his local newspaper. He's currently retired. He did publish a war novel based on his experiences in the Vietnam War http://heidelberggraphics.com/stansbury%20Publishing/Lawrence%20of%20Vietnam.htm but it has to do with the Vietnam War, not theatre, although he states that Hollywood has stolen parts of it for at least five different films. --As for Marc Norman, here are some excerpts from the WGA magazine "Written By" issue of March, 1999...Norman swears that he is not a Shakespearean scholar (pg. 19); Norman states that Shakespeare In Love was "...the high-water mark of my ability to bullshit people..." (pg. 21); and Norman says that "It's baffled some people who can't quite figure out where it came from...if you look at my credits, it's not the most likely thing for a Shakespeare project to come out of them." (pgs. 22-23) Production entities in Hollywood are leery of hiring people who have stolen scripts, since it puts the production in fiscal jeopardy. Marc Norman hasn't written another Hollywood movie since "Shakespeare In Love" despite being hailed as a great screenwriter when "Shakespeare In Love" came out. 71.154.158.137 (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's another site about "The Dark Lady" copyright infringement suit at http://www.playbackmag.com/articles/magazine/20020401/shake.html?print=yes If Don Ethan Miller (and Peter Hassinger) reached an out of court settlement, part of the settlement agreement typically is not to talk about the script theft, so it may be difficult to obtain further information. The comedy elements in the movie seem to come from Peters' stageplay since "The Dark Lady" was more sombre in tone. Peters, since he had worked professionally in the industry, opted to keep his case open rather than being bought off. He wants the U.S. Congress to pass total copyright reform in order to prevent further script theft. Peters sent a copy of his stageplay to the Queen of England, but I haven't heard anything further about that! --The actual derivation of Romeo and Juliet, by the way, seems to be that Shakespeare got it from a poem by Arthur Brooke ("Romeus and Juliet", 1562), who got it from Pierre Boaistuau, who got it from Mateo Bandello, who got it from Luigi da Porto, who got it from Dante's "Purgatorio", who got it from real life. Apparently there were four feuding families, not just two. Many of the young boys who played women in the Elizabethan theatre died of lead poisoning from the heavy makeup they applied. And apparently the Globe had 24 sides, not 8, since they were able to extrapolate the parts of the foundation that were uncovered. And I've read where the custom at that time was that the "best bed" stayed with the house, like the doors and windows, and that's why Shakespeare's wife got the second best bed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.158.137 (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Women posing as men

Can anyone find any clear information that proves women did in fact pose as men just to perform? Im curious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.84.251 (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no--women never acted in the Elizabethan theatre, it was against the law. The women would have been arrested. The movie "Shakespeare In Love" had a woman appearing on stage in the Elizabethan theatre merely as an alluring plot twist, a sort of "what would it have been like?" notion. It's totally fabricated. The theatre (then, as now) was very disreputable. During the Middle Ages actors were disenfranchised by the church and the only theatrical shows allowed were church pageants, typically using Pageant Wagons. This is because the Romans used to make fun of Christians in their Roman plays (fabula togatas, phylax plays, saturae, etc.) and for 1,000 years there was no theatre in Europe because of this consequent Christian animosity towards the theatre. Before Elizabeth I, actors were typically small groups of touring perverts and degenerates. Elizabeth ordered that all acting troupes be sponsored by a member of royalty, hence the move into established theatres, where some control could be had over them. Even then the city of London ordered that all playhouses be outside the city limits. Scripts had to be submitted to The Master of Revels (yes, they actually had one, he was not fabricated for the movie) for censorship reasons (sedition was an ongoing problem). In 1648 the theatres were torn down, actors were ordered whipped and anyone caught attending plays was fined five shillings. During the Jacobean era a woman, Mary Frith (known as Moll Cutpurse), was arrested for singing and playing musical instruments in a play about her called "The Roaring Girl" by Middleton and Dekker. The English even had Sumptuary Laws, which decreed the style, expense and colour of clothes one was allowed to wear according to their social rank. It was a very ordered, class conscious, stratified society. Elizabeth I was the Adolph Hitler of her day--she had spies everywhere, with everyone spying on each other. This is how Shakespeare's father made his money--by being an informant for the Queen. When he lost his informant job he lost his goodly income and had to pull his son out of the expensive upper middle class school he was in, so William Shakespeare's high-end education is a direct result of his father being a snitch and a rat. Women were finally allowed to act on the English stage in 1660. Other theatres which barred women from acting were the ancient Greek theatre and the Japanese Noh theatre. One would think women would naturally be drawn to acting because of the costumes, make-up and exhibitionism involved but theatre involves persons of a disreputable nature, then as now. Look what happened to Lindsay Lohan. Drugs, booze, promiscuity--not what you want your daughter involved with. Things don't change. 66.122.184.14 (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

… --Xover (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are three good sources I found on the Internet that describe women actors as illegal in the Elizabethan theatre--Globe Theatre Female Roles; Elizabethan Theatre; Elizabethan Theatre--A Lecture--by Thomas Larque. Hope this provides the necessary references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.184.14 (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. How about for the rather remarkable assertion that Shakespeare's father was a professional spy for Elizabeth I? --Xover (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I first heard his dad was a domestic informer (spy) on a PBS television broadcast of a British documentary about 10 years ago. (Apparently there's lots of handwritten records left in the archives in England.) Which makes sense--Elizabeth I had spies everywhere, she was quite a paranoid psychotic (her dad chopped her mom's head off, who wouldn't be?) and there was the ongoing Catholic/Protestant upheavel. John Shakespeare was an illiterate farmhand and yet he became an alderman & burgess & chamberlain & etc. (His first official government job was as beer taster for the city of Stratford, yes they actually had such a job.) He made a lot of money off shady transactions in the wool trade, yet wool was a government monopoly. He became a big time money lender. How'd he manage all that without protection from the Crown? Elizabeth liked to employ municipal officers as spies because they would have daily knowledge of what was going on. Because of his position with the city of Stratford, John Shakespeare was a prime candidate for the job of informer. And then we have the history of his fortunes rising until Elizabeth I is excommunicated in 1570, and then in the 1570's John's fortunes go downhill (he was a Catholic) and it seems he is no longer protected by the Crown. The same "spy" attribution, by the way, is used to explain how Christopher Marlowe got away with so much seditiousness. They think he may have been assassinated, not simply killed in a drunken brawl as depicted in the movie. The tavern where he was killed still stands. I'm going to have to do a bit of digging to find references, though. 66.122.184.14 (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)