Shakespeare in Love

by Lee Hall, Marc Norman, Tom Stoppard

Young Will Shakespeare has writer's block... the deadline for his new play is fast approaching but he's in desperate need of inspiration. That is, until he finds his muse – Viola. This beautiful young woman is Will’s greatest admirer and will stop at nothing (including breaking the law) to appear in his next play.

Against a bustling background of mistaken identity, ruthless scheming and backstage theatrics, Will’s love for Viola quickly blossoms and insp

Genres: Plays, Theatre, Drama, Shakespeare, Comedy, British Literature

148 pages, Paperback

First published November 6, 2014

About the author

Lee Hall (born 20 September 1966) is an English playwright and screenwriter. He is best known for the 2000 film Billy Elliot.

Hall was born in Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne & Wear, in 1966, the son of a house painter and decorator and a housewife. He was educated at Benfield School in Walkergate. As a youth he went to Wallsend Young People's Theatre along with Deka Walmsley and Trevor Fox who later appeared in both Billy Elliot and The Pitmen Painters. He went to Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, where he studied English literature and was taught by the poet Paul Muldoon.[1] After leaving Cambridge, he worked as a youth theatre fundraiser in Newcastle and at the Gate Theatre in London. In 1997, his playwriting career was launched with the broadcast of his radio play, Spoonface Steinberg, on BBC Radio 4.[2]

Reviews

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

“None can be immortal. I only dream of being alive.”

First off, my rating for this play is colored by my experience of seeing the first production in North America at the Stratford Festival in Ontario, Canada. A production I loved.
Lee Hall adapted the stage script of “Shakespeare in Love” from the brilliant screenplay by Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard, and Hall did a nice job of it. Taking what he could from the screenplay; adapting, cutting, augmenting, and adding to it as needed to make this story work on stage is not an easy task, but one I think he handled successfully.
I do feel that the play assumes a lot of the audience, where the film did a little better job of filling in gaps that the general moviegoer might have had in knowledge. The play is for a smaller more select group, it reflects that.
I really enjoyed the many clever allusions to Shakespeare’s work scattered throughout the text. This was a hallmark of the film as well, but some really clever bits have been added to the stage play.
A criticism of the text, its characterizations are pretty surface on the page. Good performers have to add a lot of flesh to them.
When it comes down to it, “Shakespeare in Love” is a love letter to the theater and to Shakespeare, so it would have to be pretty awful for me not to enjoy it. As it stands, I think it is darn good.

[Ashley Marie · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is currently running at Ohio Shakespeare Festival, and I'm in love all over again. I haven't seen the movie in years. I read the script four times last week, gonna do it four more times this week, then four final times next week, and I'm convinced I'll still pick up new things by closing Sunday (running lights and sound, huzzah). The necessity of including the music seems to have been a bit of a headache from the production side, but the actors take it in stride and project, so the words are still well heard. As almost always with plays, it is certainly better seen than read.

[Simon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not really sure why this was written, to tell the truth. The film was brilliant (the cast!), but it depended upon quick cuts and the ability to evoke Elizabethan London as a plausible backdrop without having it overpower Stoppard and Norman's witty script. The movie satisfied on both levels, as a romance and an homage to the creative process.

The play . . . doesn't. The play is a never-ending series of short scenes and costume changes. That means pageantry out the wazoo, making it a difficult choice for theatres without substantial budgets. It is also distracting because some of the line readings from the movie are iconic. There were major actors in nearly all of the supporting roles --- hell, Judi Dench copped an Oscar for something like eight minutes screen time --- and a really good turn as Will from a young Joseph Fiennes. I doubt Paltrow has ever played a role more suited to her than Viola.

But Shakespeare in Love as a play thuds along. Most of the good lines are still there, but they are overwhelmed by what appears to be an enormous amount of Elizabethan music performed live, set pieces that accomplish nothing other than covering scene changes (Viola's and Wessex's wedding) and the most unsatisfying ending I could possibly imagine. Instead of Viola walking across the sandy beach in the New World as Will creates Twelfth Night, Will . . . creates Twelfth Night. Sorry. In this case, a picture was worth a thousand words.

I am looking for a play to open the season next year for the theatre. You have no idea how much I wanted it to be Shakespeare in Love. Oh, well, it made me go back and rewatch the movie.

[Neil · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hall's adaptation is very loyal, as I remember it, to Tom Stoppard's film script. In the intervening years since the film's release, I think it has become fashionable to slight it, either because it won the Academy Award over Saving Private Ryan, or because Gwyneth Paltrow's early career was perhaps overpraised. To me that's a shame, an example of comedy being underappreciated.

This is a very funny story, and while somewhat tongue in cheek, I think it's a great reflection of Shakespeare's time, a reminder that all of this high art came out of a chaotic period where theater traditions were just being created, the relationship of commerce and art and power were even less defined than they are now, where women's roles were horribly limited. So while this is all hilarious, it's also about something, in both a historical sense and in its relation to modern questions of how we should make art. And there's also the bonus, for Shakespeare fans, of all the sly winks to famous lines and characters hidden throughout.

It's hard for me to evaluate the play without thinking of the movie and some of the great performances in it. There are a lot of location changes and I'd be curious to see how this was staged, especially to reflect the crowds and action of London as depicted in the film. It seems to me that you would need to have a big production budget to pull it off.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

An adaptation of the Oscar-winning film, the stage version features a very two-dimensional cast of characters in the writing, but it is an enjoyable work overall. I'm sure it would be a fun experience to view onstage, with the right production design, direction and casting.

[Nikki]

i think ross macdonald has lost his mind send help

[Leah · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was good, a very lovely script.

[John · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's a witty script but thematically thin.

[Carmen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Shakespeare in Love is one of those plays that reminds me why I love the theatre. The Independent put it best:

Makes you feel glad to be alive.

A celebration of life, of love, of the stage. Hilarious, full of references to Shakespeare’s future works, and while ultimately bittersweet, the artists are able to make art out of their pain. Viola pours her heart into the role of Juliet, which has parallels to her doomed relationship with Will, and he writes Twelfth Night as a tribute to his beloved. How it all fits together so well... it’s a mystery.

[Doug Evans · Rating 2 out of 5]

Mediocre

It was probably impossible to follow the movie which was so good. I'll give them credit for trying. I'll also give them credit for creating a player that has the same format as Elizabethan plays and our current movies. They kept many of the same lines. It just doesn't work it's like comparing a high school play written for high school kids to a Shakespearean play.

[Yourfiendmrjones · Rating 4 out of 5]

A light, fun play that moves at the pace of the film, thanks to a unique staging reminiscent of the play version of “The Curious Case of the Dog at Night-Time.”

[Zack · Rating 4 out of 5]

Setting: 16th Century; multiple locations in/around Elizabethan London
Genre: Dramatic Comedy Length: 2 Act; 111 pgs.; 120+ min. Cast Size: 18m, 66
Basis: T. Stoppard, M. Norman’s screenplay Adaptations: ---
Productions: London (Jul. ’14 – Apr. ’15), Stratford Festival, (Canada, ’16), OR, USA Shakes Festival (Feb. ’17) Accolades: ---

Background
- Saw film but don’t remember much; glad I can judge play on script alone

Writing
Positive
- Feels like a Shakespeare comedy itself in tone and diction alike (disguise, misunderstandings, insults, verse to prose alternation)
- Wasn’t sure at first how blend of modern diction and Elizabeth would work but it did very well
- Very, very funny (small punch lines; love the audition and balcony scene)

Negative
- Felt like Burbage arc could’ve been more developed, forgot about it at times
- Thought Viola’s dream to act could’ve been more developed to be more effective and make us care more about her character
- Little too much musical score, maybe because of film basis?

Other
Casting/Acting
- Pro: huge cast and various sized roles Con: limited female roles; some male roles could be females I guess but can’t really have females playing a male role – would take away from plot
- Actors playing Will and Viola would need relatively solid Shakespearean acting ability
- British accents needed
- Excellent show case for talented lead actor in the role of Will

Direction
- Limited scene descriptions and quick transitions allow for creativity
- Need to be good with comedic timing and a solid grasp on Shakespearean acting

Production
- Cost could be on either end of the spectrum depending on scene design
- Many Period costumes could be costly

Audience
- May be a draw on name alone
- Audience wouldn’t need to be too Shakespeare savvy to appreciate


All in All
- Loved that this is essentially a modern-day Shakespearean Comedy with farcical elements
- Cool to see a screen to stage adaptation that wasn’t turned into a musical; wasn’t even a forced cash-grab either – works really, really well on stage the way it was adapted, could’ve even been a play first
- Example of a play I wish I wrote – just my style
- Immediately jumped to dream list to direct and act (Will)
- Learned: 1) Can provide minimal scene descriptions and leave it up to the director 2) make sure antagonizing arc and protagonist goals are developed for effectivity

[IReadPlays · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Can a play show us the very truth and nature of love?” 🥀
~
In my opinion, not every adaptation is quite fit for the stage. But in the age of movie musicals and musical movies, those lines seem to be blurred more every day. One could argue that nostalgia is what our audiences need or rather crave at this particular moment in time, and I would agree. Hindsight will be 2020, I guess. (lol sorry) This story, however, should have probably always been performed on stage from the start (though I love the movie, don't get me twisted). And thank goodness someone brought it back home.
~
Will (yes, THAT Will) is a playwright struggling to finish a new piece he's working on. Wouldn't you know it, he falls in love with a rich heiress who's being married off to a gross old rich guy who just doesn’t get it…Viola disguises herself as Thomas Kent (because girls can't be actors, duh) and auditions to be a part of Will's newest production. She nabs the lead role and strikes up a friendship with Will while also falling in love with him (forbidden!!) as Viola. The queen shows up to help set up the wager mentioned at the beginning of my review…an Icon. The plot wraps up similarly to a Shakespeare play (complete with ghosts) and we end at the beginning. So to speak.
~
There are so many intricate stage directions that really propel us (the audience, the reader…) into a shared experience. Several times the author notes that the ensemble is on stage watching the action they are not a part of (sometimes interacting by handing the in-scene actors props or moving sets), and I LOVE that touch.
~
Also, did I think that that was Orlando Bloom on the cover when I first picked it up? Yes.

@ireadplays IG / @ireadplaysblog TIKTOK

[Krisztina Sardi · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read it in Hungarian, translated by the wonderfully talented Szabó T. Anna. I can't tell how much I love this drama. One of my all-time favorites. And it's a great theatre-adaptation of the marvellous screenplay by Tom Stoppard&Marc Norman. Lee Hall managed to change it really smoothly. Though, it's a good game for the reader to try and remember how this/that was in the film. Absolutely loved it.

[Malcolm · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fanciful piece of historical fanfiction. It has no pretensions of historical accuracy but it certainly offers some interesting ideas. It even gives a little nod to the conspiracy theories that Marlowe wrote Shakespeare's plays. Dialogue is pretty good and it definitely doesn't try to lionize Shakespeare overmuch. In the piece's biggest fight he pretty much gets his ass kicked.

[Liz · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’m not sure how staging this Play version of the positively fantastic film may go. The story is in line and still mostly there. However, as always with ‘film-to-stage’ attempts, there are a 100 scenes and choppy transitions between them.

One may lose the audience with such a choppy path. Still, the characters are lively and funny bits abound.

[Marc Weaver · Rating 4 out of 5]

I went into reading this play blindly. I have never seen the movie or the stage production before. It was a little hard to understand what was happening onstage and who was who since there were very few stage directions. But I think I got the main idea. Overall, this play is a wild, fun comedy packed with lots of action and drama. I think I would really enjoy it better seeing it performed.

[Alexander Davidson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A huge fan of the film, I wanted to check out this play. It moves super quickly - a quick cut of all the best scenes and lines slimmed down - and it makes me wonder what the staging would be like to see it all in person with scene changes, costume changes, lighting, sound, etc.

[Philip M Johnson]

I finished this soon after i got it. We were planning on doing the play a year after covid but could not get the streaming rights. So we did something else. Great play. Since then I have retired so I'll probably not design or direct the play

[Skylar Swalls · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great for Shakespeare lovers! Lots of witty retorts and cross references hidden in the language, and still somehow manages to be approachable and understandable for those not familiar with the Shakespearean jargon.

[Justin Deveau · Rating 3 out of 5]

Entertaining, the movie was more effective. This play adds a good deal of comic business to make up for not have cinematography. It made the play a bit less impactful when I read it, but it still was fun.

[Henry Skey · Rating 4 out of 5]

I remember really liking the movie, and the play is slightly different but more or less how I remembered it on screen. Some of the lines are still in my head. Very breezily paced, I'm not the biggest Shakespeare fan but this? This, I like.

[Tom Elliott · Rating 4 out of 5]

Somehow this belongs on the stage - the movie was delightful, but stories about theater are best told theatrically rather than cinematically, IMHO.

[Eileen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fun play.

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

Shakespeare in Love

God, I forgot how very very very very very very very very very very very very very good this is.

[Elessar · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5

[Little Prince · Rating 5 out of 5]

ugh! so pretty. love above all

[Patina Malinalli · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an interesting book, but I wasn't sure what to think of some parts of it.

If you like reading plays, especially classics or plays based on classics, you may enjoy this book.

[sara · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had sooooooo much fun. If only there's more

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think the script may actually be stronger than the movie -- at least from the ability to convey emotions.