PERFORMANCE PERSPECTIVES

“Shakespeare In Love”

A TRAP FOR YOUNG PLAYERS

A quite capable actor who once auditioned for a small role of “the messenger” in a Melbourne TV production was caught in a simple trap. Because the news the messenger was delivering was very dramatic the actor planned the audition performance as a major emotional ‘tour de force’ for the messenger. However on this occasion the actor failed to identify the fact that the point of the story related to the effect this news had on the person who received it. The result was a very impressive display of acting skills which unfortunately told the wrong story. The explanation that there was another reading of the story so disrupted the performer’s concentration that any alternative interpretation was never satisfactorily achieved. The failure to identify “whose story it is” can be very costly.

If the question, “Whose story is it?” arises amongst any group of rehearsing actors an instant cacophony of “Mine”…“Mine”…”Mine” is provoked. This is of course followed by much laughter. But hidden in this jocularity is the recognition of an essential need. A ‘need’ which is worthy of further consideration.

The film “Shakespeare in Love” also provokes much laughter with many delightfully funny lines pitched at those of us who are ‘in the business’.

However in assessing the film from a performers point of view one line in particular stands out: -

In “Shakespeare in Love” Ralph Bashford (JIM CARTER) is asked by a whore, “What is this play about?” Ralph replies “Well, there’s this nurse…” For Ralph Bashford plays the nurse in this ‘original’ production of “Romeo and Juliet” and so he can only see the story from one point of view.

This line again provokes the obvious question….

Whose story is it?……… “Shakespeare in Love”

The title is often a clue. In this case it points very strongly to the young vibrant, talented and very attractive Will Shakespeare (JOSEPH FIENNES) being the person the story is about. But is this so?

We meet young William as a working play write with a desire to achieve success and status in a manipulative and competitive world. There is pressure from producers, peers and also the establishment. But he is an energetic and committed young man and Will can be just as determined, manipulative and cheeky as any of them. In fact he needs these qualities just to survive as a writer.

One thing is certain, the vibrant young character of the title is bound to fall in love. And he does. Because of the circumstances he needs all his guile, cunning and cheekiness to pursue this relationship. This he does with vigour and for great reward.

There is however, something slightly manipulative about this conquest because he keeps the truth of an existing relationship to himself. In addition he also uses the stimulation of the relationship to further develop his work on the new play. In his romantic attachment (as in his commercial relationships) there remains a degree of manipulation and deception even if it is based on good intention and real need. And the young bard appears content irrespective of the outcomes to just pursue ‘the satisfaction of the moment’.

Yet he certainly achieves great things. These include an extraordinary love affair and a remarkable theatrical success. But what has he learnt from this experience? Not much it seems. By the end of the story, (if he is for the moment sadder) it is not evident that he is wiser. For the evidence is - that all he has really proved to himself is that by trusting his instincts he can create a great play.

So what has he actually gained from this extraordinary experience. Well, he has accumulated material for a new play that may ultimately enshrine his lover’s values and charm. Maybe it will also be another success! But it is only the process of creating it which will determine this and that’s exactly the position he was in at the beginning of the film. In fact he seems to see his “muse” as being external to himself and therefore he looks outwards for the solution to his problems. So it would seem that William is just going around in intense, sometimes manipulative, certainly volatile and ultimately theatrically productive circles. Despite a very engaging performance from Joseph Fiennes this doesn’t appear to be the story that had to be told.

Viola De Lesseps (GWENNETH PALTROW) story is noticeable different. Here is a character who like Will has a passion to achieve something but she is prevented from doing this because of what we now know to be irrelevant social mores and prejudices. Despite these inhibiting factors she also pursues her goal of being an actor with vigour, intelligence and a cheeky sense of adventure. However, she is forced to come to terms with giving up her aspirations. She loses her love, her theatrical aspirations and her freedom but still manages to go on confronting the world. We are left with the belief that she is a person who because of her inner strength will keep on exploring and confronting the new and the unattainable. The final shot of the movie sees her emerging from yet another confronting and testing situation.

So if it is the title which provokes us to ask the question “Whose story is it?” - it’s the final shot which seems to provide the answer to this question. This period film presents timeless dilemmas for its two main characters. But it’s the story of a woman struggling to defy history and the power of men, which in the end is the story of hope. It is not surprising, (with the power of this story supporting her) that it was Gwyneth Paltrow for whom the Academy chose to vote.

This is a well-directed film. It is not only the pleasing and effective visual choices that indicate this but it is, more importantly, the consistently high standard of the performances. This generally indicates a director who knows the grammar of his medium and understands the craft of his actors.

There is only one performance that I didn’t find quite so rewarding. Stutterers are often characters who are misunderstood and therefore only superficially explored. I find this to be the case with Wabash (MARK WILLIAMS). The predictable moment where he looses his stutter was for me a less than satisfying truth. However the audience with whom I saw the film disagreed. They responded warmly.

It is however never reasonable to hold the actor solely responsible for these decisions. There is a joint responsibility, as director’s choices in instigating and assessing performance are obviously always a significant factor.

This is a successful, well-made film with good performances and it is not possible from the outside to realistically assess whether the decisions about ‘whose story it was’ were made early or late in the production. However it is a good illustration of how significant this “point of view” can be. On a scene by scene basis knowing “whose scene it is” can sometimes be critical for both actor and story.

Copyright © The Rehearsal Room 2001. All rights Reserved. www.rehearsalroom.com