This is not exactly a film about Shakespeare, because the historical Will is so poorly documented. The real, core theme here (not fully developed, though) is conflict between career and personal life. Or heart over mind, or duty vs. love as in classical drama. Does conjectured depression after the Globe Theater fire entirely explain renunciation of art in Will's case? Anyway, the film deals with the given situation, so that's it. But do we feel any of Will's greatness here? Hardly. Was he like Prospero exiled (probably) or just a broken man (like in this film)?
First, the title itself is provocative and unfounded or simply ironic (Will's birthday is unknown and its coincidence with St. George's Day and with his final day is mere hagiography convention). The pace and tone of the film are slow and morose, perhaps suggesting depression as a possible cause of Will's retirement. Still, how could such a great playwright give up completely on writing and isolate himself in such a mundane environment? Not quite believable. The real Will still did some collaborative work in his last years - if he really was the same man as the author of the great plays.
Here Stratfordians would jump up with rage and contempt, as they accept the mainstream didactic view on Will (exhibited in this film, too) and easily skip the huge question about how could a man with so limited education and traveling experience have simply imagined his extraordinary oeuvre (a question so unconvincingly answered in this film). Why did the historical Shakespeare not leave any books and manuscripts in his will? On the other hand, could possibly the Earl of Oxford or other candidates have been much more educated and experienced with all walks of life than Will the actor and theater man? Such questions still linger on because we know so little about Will and about genius in general. And this film, albeit a work of fiction, does nothing to explore the possible motivations for the actions of a great writer.
Anyway, the filming is great and the acting is generally excellent, but the script looks in places almost like a soap opera. Which is not necessarily a bad thing (aren't even some of Will's plays almost soap operas, if only brilliantly done?). Many facts and hypotheses about Will's life are alluded to and briefly touched upon in this film, as if the filmmakers were to check the boxes.
Again, this is a work of fiction, so the liberties taken by Will himself in his plays should warn us against expecting a literal, documentary style approach here. But this is exactly why the film should have probed more deeply and imaginatively in the creative mind of a great writer and theatrical producer. Sorry to say, but Brannagh's himself was the least complex character (and performance) in the movie. This would be understandable only if Will was really depressed in his final years and thus devoid of any previous greatness and creative mind, which would make too simplistic an explanation for the core conflict inherent to this movie.
First, the title itself is provocative and unfounded or simply ironic (Will's birthday is unknown and its coincidence with St. George's Day and with his final day is mere hagiography convention). The pace and tone of the film are slow and morose, perhaps suggesting depression as a possible cause of Will's retirement. Still, how could such a great playwright give up completely on writing and isolate himself in such a mundane environment? Not quite believable. The real Will still did some collaborative work in his last years - if he really was the same man as the author of the great plays.
Here Stratfordians would jump up with rage and contempt, as they accept the mainstream didactic view on Will (exhibited in this film, too) and easily skip the huge question about how could a man with so limited education and traveling experience have simply imagined his extraordinary oeuvre (a question so unconvincingly answered in this film). Why did the historical Shakespeare not leave any books and manuscripts in his will? On the other hand, could possibly the Earl of Oxford or other candidates have been much more educated and experienced with all walks of life than Will the actor and theater man? Such questions still linger on because we know so little about Will and about genius in general. And this film, albeit a work of fiction, does nothing to explore the possible motivations for the actions of a great writer.
Anyway, the filming is great and the acting is generally excellent, but the script looks in places almost like a soap opera. Which is not necessarily a bad thing (aren't even some of Will's plays almost soap operas, if only brilliantly done?). Many facts and hypotheses about Will's life are alluded to and briefly touched upon in this film, as if the filmmakers were to check the boxes.
Again, this is a work of fiction, so the liberties taken by Will himself in his plays should warn us against expecting a literal, documentary style approach here. But this is exactly why the film should have probed more deeply and imaginatively in the creative mind of a great writer and theatrical producer. Sorry to say, but Brannagh's himself was the least complex character (and performance) in the movie. This would be understandable only if Will was really depressed in his final years and thus devoid of any previous greatness and creative mind, which would make too simplistic an explanation for the core conflict inherent to this movie.