Reaching Lifelong Goals as a Nontraditional Student

I have been neglecting everyone for too long…   I am in finish the term panic mode.   Papers, math tests, History independent studies…the list goes on.   Hope to make up some ground over the long Thanksgiving Holiday.   As a treat for all of you, I am posting my recent research paper for my ENG201, Early Shakespeare class.   I challenged my instructor to a beer if I could find a historical inaccuracy in the 1998 movie “Shakespeare In Love” that he did not spot.    I WON THE CHALLENGE!!!    My paper was a A+ success.   Have a Happy Thanksgiving everyone and enjoy the read.

Shakespeare in Love – Historical Inaccuracies

In the 1998 blockbuster hit Shakespeare in love the film makers present a wonderful romance, a rich story and spectacular costumes.   However, in the very first frame of the movie, they make the mistake of throwing down the gauntlet to Elizabethan historians by flashing “London 1593″.   One must have the ability to exercise suspension of disbelief to enjoy this movie at face value.   With the date set at 1593 this immediately ties the events in the film to known history.   It is however, just a film, a fictional love story and is filled with wonderful historical tidbits (when you can find the accurate ones…).

For this exercise, we need to differentiate between the historical inaccuracies based on three criteria: “sight gags” and comedy “bits” that have no pretence of being historically accurate; incorrect Elizabethan period references and facts; and finally actual blatant historical inaccuracies in the film.   Given that this is a fictional Hollywood production and not a documentary of Shakespeare’s London, the general viewing public was probably oblivious to what Historians find issue with.

A few of the “stage business gags” of note are illustrated here: Shakespeare on the pseudo psychiatrist’s “couch” being analyzed about his writers block.   The souvenir mug on his desk that reads “A present from Stratford-on-Avon” rests on the playwright’s desk.    We hear individuals in the streets speaking “future” lines from his plays as Shakespeare walks by somehow not noticing.    Shakespeare jumping into a ferryboat on the Thames and shouting “follow that boat!   There are many more examples of these gags throughout the film.   I find these small bits non offensive to my Historian principles and accept them for what they are, entertainment.  These small bits only add to the feel of Shakespeare’s London as being the “Hollywood” of Elizabethan times.  This is probably best illustrated by the ferryman with a “script” that he tries to get Will to read.

This brings us to the second level of inaccuracy, incorrect items or images of Elizabethan London in the late 1500s.   One of the most glaring inaccuracies takes place in the tavern where the actors are celebrating and hear of Marlowe’s murder.   In this scene, everyone is drinking their ale from glass beakers.   They look like a modern day pilsner glass.   This is a major period error as the vessels would most probably be made of pewter.

The second major historical inaccuracy is Queen Elizabeth attending the performance of Romeo and Juliet in the movie.   She is in disguise and reveals herself at the end of the production.   Of course, this is a most improbable scenario, the Queen had the plays brought to her instead.   While this plot piece works in the movie it is totally wrong historically.

Another problem harkens back to the first frame “London 1593″ reference.   The period that this film is supposed to be taking place in was during a closure from the plague.   As noted by Andrew Gurr, “The 1592–4 period was difficult for the acting companies of London; a severe outbreak of bubonic plague meant that the London theatres were closed almost continuously from June 1592 to May 1594.” (Gurr, p.38)  Even though there was a scene to cover this inaccuracy, the fact still remains that London’s theaters were not open during the year of this movie.

Perhaps it was Tom Stoppard’s poetic license, but it also should be recognized that the names of the acting companies and the theaters are not correct historically.  Are the Admiral’s Men, possibly relating to Sir Walter Raleigh?   These inaccuracies can be excused based on the fictional basis for the story.  It was in 1594 that Shakespeare founded the Chamberlain’s men, a full year after their mention in the movie.

There is a reference to Titus Andronicus by one of the actors as if they had already performed the play.   Another reference to the play by Will,   “Marlowe’s touch was in my Titus Andronicus” alluding he received “help” from Marlowe in the writing.   Here is an obscure reference to the theory (totally unfounded) that Shakespeare did not write his own plays.  Again, historically inaccurate as it was first recorded performance was in early 1594.   This is just the beginning of the major historical inaccuracies that are related to the now infamous frame…London 1593.

As a Historian, the rather blatant and most troubling historical inaccuracies of Shakespeare in Love revolve around two distinct themes.

First, the multiple references by Lord Wessex about taking Viola DeLesseps to his “plantation” in Virginia.   Again, with the stated date of 1593 for this movie, there lies one of the most blatant historical inaccuracies within.   Eric Foner, in his American history textbook states: “The colonists, mostly young men under military leadership abandoned the venture (Virginia colony 1586) and returned to England.  A second group of 100 settlers, composed of families was dispatched that year.   Their fate remains a mystery.    When a ship bearing supplies arrived in 1590, the sailors found the colony abandoned…”(Foner) Tobacco plantations were not established in Virginia until a full 20 years past the date of this reference in the movie.   Additionally, one other glaring inaccuracy in the very last scene of the movie adds to this theme of the “Americas”.    Viola (implied) is shown walking across a vast expanse of beach alone.   As the shot pans away and the scene of a sandy beach, probably a mile wide is shown.   This is panoramic and visually powerful, however, totally inaccurate historically.   The only possible place that Lord Wessex could have taken Viola would be the Jamestown colony (founded 1607).   The settlements were established inland on the Chesapeake where there was a viable harbor.    This historical bobble is my “Secret ace in the hole!”

The other great historical inaccuracy of the film revolves around the story itself.  Given that this film is a fictional work about the Bard in London 1593, some allowances can be made…but!     The whole idea that Romeo and Juliet was inspired by Shakespeare’s love for Viola is a nice romantic fable, but is probably far from the truth.   And again, the date of 1593 has its issues as well.   The connection with Marlowe and his murder (May 30, 1593)    sort of fits the timeline of the movie, but not a relationship with Romeo and Juliet.   If there is to be a romantic connection with Shakespeare’s works, the dark lady of the sonnets would have been a better choice for the movie.  (I eagerly anticipate the opportunity to research this in forthcoming papers for ENG 203)   The portrayal of Shakespeare having a torrid love affair that inspires Romeo and Juliet is for the movie going masses and is a red flag to Shakespearean Historians.

And to top all of this off, the final scene where we see Shakespeare writing the play “Twelfth Night” and transforming Viola into a character.  This play may have been in Shakespeare’s “to do” list, but was not written for another seven years (1600).   I prefer to think that the Viola reference is botanical and not romantic.

Being the consummate history geek, I had to watch this movie twice for this exercise.  One time, with a keen eye for all of the historical inaccuracies, and again, with great suspension of disbelief to enjoy the movie for its art.