A rare event last night, I actually watched some 'telly', or to be precise, a programme telling the background story of how the superb film of "Shakespeare in Love" came to be made. It was one of those 'on-again, off-again' scenarios at which Hollywood excels. The original writer hawked his outline round until one of the big studios took it up. Julia Roberts was booked to play the role of Viola de Lessops and she insisted that only Daniel Day-Lewis could play Shakespeare. Apparently she flew to Dublin but within two days she flew back for reasons which were not made clear but one sensed that she returned with a flea in her ear! Although some sets had been built, the studio decided to pull the film when Roberts pulled out, herself.
All seemed lost but then a very courageous lady working for the Weinstein brothers at Miramax picked up the script, liked it and persuaded them to take it on. I have a soft spot for Miramax films. I couldn't give you the name of any of their films but every time I see their name behind a movie I just know it will be slightly off-beat, original and worth a look. However, the problem for Harvey Weinstein in this case was the fact that the original studio wanted $6m for the rights so that they could recover their expenses arising from the false start. Disney, who were fronting some of the money for Miramax, went wobbly at the thought of putting $6m up front, so Harvey Weinstein dipped into his own pocket and produced the money himself.
He strikes me as a quite remarkable man, Mr. Weinstein. He looks like an escapee from "The Sopranos" and could be James Gandolfini's brother. He is obviously a shrewd and, I guess, extremely tough business man, but inside that case-hardened exterior their lies a man with highly-tuned, artistic antennae and the guts to put his money where his dramatic sensibilities lead him. In this case they led him to produce one of the all-time great films, certainly the best film about Shakespeare that has ever been made. If I taught Shakespeare in a school, the first thing I would do is show the youngsters that film and explain some of the text to them before we even opened one of Will's plays.
There can be only one outcome - arise, Sir Harvey!
James Gandolfini [ducks]
Posted by: N.I.B. | Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 14:08
Thank you, 'NIB', I have corrected it.
If only you confined yourself to useful comments!
Posted by: David Duff | Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 15:00
Thanks. They do look like brothers though - they surely share the same tuber.
Posted by: N.I.B. | Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 15:09
Bloody Hell, Duff, are you my long-lost brother? We watched the prog too, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Not everyone got the point of the film, though. I commented at work one day that we'd been to see it. A colleague asked how I'd liked it. "I laughed and laughed", I said. "Oh", he said, "yes, I suppose it is a comedy."
Posted by: dearieme | Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 18:24
Your long lost brother? I don't think so, 'DM', but it has to be confessed that Mrs. Duff Snr. was a little bit naughty, but even so, I think I'm the only result!
As for the film, it is quite brilliant. Even watching that documentary on it, I picked up one or two references I had missed before - but that's Stoppard for you! When I saw it first time, I caused some embarrassment to the 'Memsahib' and friends by rocking the whole row of seats because I was laughing so hard.
I have become more of a movie-goer in later life and I do reckon that anything under the Miramax label is at least worth checking out.
Posted by: David Duff | Tuesday, 16 October 2007 at 19:31