![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can anyone explain or know the reason why Rupert Everett is not credited for his portrayal of the role of KIT MARLOW???
I'd been wondering about that too. Why WASN't Rupert Everett credited for his performance???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.218.236.93 ( talk) 18:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to know that too. Furthermore i think that the synopsis is rather short. The article is almost a stub.
The chronology explained by the quote "for instance, the colonization of North America by the English did not begin until 1584 and Romeo and Juliet was largely written by 1596 or 1597" seems not to be inconsistent with the plot of the movie. Either a different example of inconsistency was given, or more evidence should be given to show that there could have been no colonization of North America at the time when the movie is set.
All the awards are really unneccesary, but what about the plot or a detailed summary ? even an interpretation or analysis and a hint to the book, that appeared in stores some years ago would be nice!
I have added a synopsis section. Let me go ahead and admit it up front: it is LOOOONG. It is a 137 minute long movie, and the plot is a bit complex. It seems that whenever I tried to edit out a detail, it made something else not make sense. Lets call this a first draft, and if anybody can tighten it up, I think we'd all be grateful. Kjdamrau 06:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Ken Damrau
Is Mercutio's Queen Mab speech regarded the longest speech in Shakespeare? It's only 43 lines whereas Berowne's speech from Love's Labours Lost, Act Four, Scene iii l. 285, is 76 lines long. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.43.204 ( talk) 15:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
A summary does not exist. If somebody has seen the movie or is knowledgeable about it, can you please include one Canking 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I recently watched the movie again, and every time Geoffrey Rush's character clamored for pirates and a dog to be included in the supposed comedy that Shakespeare was to have been writing I chuckled. Subustitue monkey for dog and there's a bit of odd ironic humor in that isn't there? Not to mention that the whole Pirates franchise has great debt to Shakespearian plot devices etc.
A bit of trivia about that title that I wonder if should be included:
The title of the movie is originally the title of a play by Dion Boucicault (the play which I believe is not extant), but is also referenced in the play Two Shakespearean Gentlemen by Richard Nelson, which premiered at The Royal Shakespeare Company, London (in the play the context is that Boucicault is writing Shakespeare in love over the course of the play). While Boucicault's play has no relation to the movie, Stoppard, knowing this, surely lifted the title. Liontamarin 20:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion the plot summary, currently 500 words, isn't excessively long. I've removed the {{ plot}} tag. -- Tony Sidaway 05:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Read the summary today 23rd March 2010 and the last section detailing the Academy Award win sounds highly emotionally charged and I don't feel it belongs in a summary, a Controversy section at best. Scorpiousdelectus ( talk) 14:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Scorpiousdelectus
I added 'drama' to its classification, if only because classifying it as only a "romantic comedy" brings about the stereotypes along with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.120.179 ( talk) 08:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have the film on tape and have watched it far too many times. The film makes clear that Viola is not "a noblewoman", i.e., of noble birth, but rather the daughter of a rich merchant. "Not so well-born", she tells her nurse, who replies, "well-moneyed is as good as well-born." Indeed, her father pays Lord Wessex, who is broke, to marry her and presumably further ingratiate himself to the noble class. "Your father has bought me for you", Wessex tells Viola. Also note that Viola is well-known to the boatman - "Known her since she was this high." Noblewomen were not on such casual terms with lowly boatmen.
I'll view it again to confirm Viola's social status before recommending any edits to the synopsis.
Rico402 ( talk) 07:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
"Shakespeare In love" is based on an original 5 act stageplay written in 1984 entitled "As You Might Like It" by Michael M. Peters and also a 60 page treatment entitled "The Dark Lady" by Don Ethan Miller and Peter Hassinger. A copy of "As You Might Like It" is in the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C. and the legal briefs are filed under Peters vs. Disney, Miramax et al. in United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, in Sacramento, No. CIV S-01-2362 MCE JFM PS. Miller's copyright infringement case was filed in United States District Court in Los Angeles. These legal papers are a matter of public record. TO EXPLAIN: There is virtually no copyright protection. The FBI has not been given a budget to go after script thieves--and Federal Court judges refuse to uphold what little copyright law there is because of a body of law passed by a Justice Field in the latter part of the 1800's which says that THE INTERESTS OF CORPORATIONS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS. (Writers don't stand a chance against big movie companies.) Currently all a script thief has to do is make cosmetic changes in the script to evade copyright infringement. Note: Peters' stageplay was written based on his own experiences in the theatre and film world (he has two degrees in theatre, has taught at Cal Arts in Valencia, Calif. and has acted in an Equity production of "Romeo and Juliet" in Santa Barbara in 1977). His script was written in Red Bluff, Calif., where he also built a theatre at his old high school, causing the dropout rate there to plunge 15%. He wrote the stageplay one act at a time, without a plot, as a Moliere type of farce. He has had several scripts stolen from him and is actually owed TWO Oscars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.68.12 ( talk) 12:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Marc Norman's son Zack stole Peters' play from him when Peters was teaching at Cal Arts around 1988 (Peters entered the play for an in-house production at Cal Arts and Zack crashed the private campus)--this is all annotated in the legal briefs which are in the public domain. Much of Peters' play "As You Might Like It" was used in the movie, and apparently the screenwriters also used material from "No Bed For Bacon" and "The Dark Lady" as well. So the movie screenplay is a composite. I don't know what other scripts may have been drawn from for use in the screenplay, if there were others. 71.154.158.137 ( talk) 06:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm presently holding in my hand a summary legal brief (condensed from a 120 page legal brief) demonstrating striking similarity between Peters' stageplay "As You Might Like It" and the movie "Shakespeare In Love". The characters are the same: Shakespeare trying to come up with a new play; his girlfriend and her prudish confidante; his rival in love, a pompous bore; Henslowe the theatre manager constantly trying to get Shakespeare to write; and so forth. The five acts of the play are the same: Shakespeare's atelier, an Elizabethan theatre, a bar, the alternate theatre where the new play opens, and back to Shakespeare's atelier. The plots are the same, and these are compared. The theme is the same, a revionistic interpretation of Shakespeare. They are both romantic comedies. There's a page of verbatim phrases and then there's 12 long pages of paraphrased dialog. Then there's several pages of noting similarities, such as both Shakespeares (in the movie and play) having a full head of hair when Shakespeare is normally portrayed as partially bald; Shakespeare writing his name on a small piece of paper; two swordfights at the theatre; the auditions; trying to come up with a title for the play; the Queen issuing that a sack of money be given to Shakespeare; Shakespeare "making out" with his girlfriend at the theatre; Shakespeare writing a poem for his girlfriend; Shakespeare having money problems; the trapdoor in the stage scene; etc., etc. It goes on and on. The interesting thing is that both the movie and the stageplay end with a mystical sea voyage. 71.157.182.121 ( talk) 16:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there any connection to the French play Shakespeare Amoureux, ou la Piéce a L'Etude (Shakespeare in Love) by Alexandre-Vincent Pineux Duval published in 1801 [or 1804]? Ecphora ( talk) 08:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
GOM of the movies Roger Ebert agrees that Straight's screen time was less than Dench's, but he accepts a timing of 7½ minutes. (Roger Ebert's The Great Movies quoted at [1]). May we have a good, strong source for the the recent addition of 5½ minutes? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 16:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Why no discussion in the article about critical reception of the film? I find this quite odd considering the multiple times I have seen critics place this film on their "worst Best Picture-winners" lists. This oversight is especially odd considering there is a section covering critical review on other of the year's Best Picture nominees, but not this one, the winner of the award. 97.127.68.87 ( talk) 10:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
To get back to the issue of lack of critique of the film, after it became known that there were copyright claims, there were no interviews, downstream marketing, spin-offs, sequels, etc. Just click on "Google Search" and you'll find nothing except the screenplay, because a "cloud" (that's the legal term for copyright claim) has been placed on "Shakespeare In Love". If they paid Peters his treatment fee, for instance, the cloud would be lifted and they could do a sequel. I remember Tom Stoppard was on the Charlie Rose show on television and Stoppard wouldn't say a word about "Shakespeare In Love". I did find an interview with Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard in the March, 1999 issue of "Written By", the magazine of the Writers Guild of America, West, before the copyright scandal broke, but little else from people who were directly involved in the film. Apparently, from what I've been able to deduce, everybody was told to shut up about the film because of the copyright infringement matter. 71.154.158.137 ( talk) 10:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
"Prooving" is the obsolete Shakespearean spelling. Peters had sent a copy of his stageplay to the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C., 201 East Capitol Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003, phone: 202/675-0384 fax: 202/675-0328 along with a summary legal brief, where these documents reside in the archives, so I'm assuming someone may have published these. He was doing part time substitute teaching in Northern California, as stated in the Chico News & Review article, after he became disabled working at the Redding Civic Auditorium in Northern California, and had taught theatre and film at California Institute of the Arts in Southern California in the late 1980's, as stated in the article. In California, if you substitute teach you end up teaching every subject under the sun. He's quite literate, having written many theatrical reviews for his local newspaper. He's currently retired. He did publish a war novel based on his experiences in the Vietnam War http://heidelberggraphics.com/stansbury%20Publishing/Lawrence%20of%20Vietnam.htm but it has to do with the Vietnam War, not theatre, although he states that Hollywood has stolen parts of it for at least five different films. --As for Marc Norman, here are some excerpts from the WGA magazine "Written By" issue of March, 1999...Norman swears that he is not a Shakespearean scholar (pg. 19); Norman states that Shakespeare In Love was "...the high-water mark of my ability to bullshit people..." (pg. 21); and Norman says that "It's baffled some people who can't quite figure out where it came from...if you look at my credits, it's not the most likely thing for a Shakespeare project to come out of them." (pgs. 22-23) Production entities in Hollywood are leery of hiring people who have stolen scripts, since it puts the production in fiscal jeopardy. Marc Norman hasn't written another Hollywood movie since "Shakespeare In Love" despite being hailed as a great screenwriter when "Shakespeare In Love" came out. 71.154.158.137 ( talk) 17:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Here are two sources for starters:
http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct_archive/spr99/24a_fr.html
-- Espoo ( talk) 21:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I've always thought that the ship that Viola and her husband sailed on really did sink, and that her survival magically (in the way that only happens in fiction) inspired Shakespeare to write Twelfth Night without knowing about it. About a year ago Stile4aly edited the plot section to state that the shipwreck was purely of Shakespeare's imagination as he wrote the new play. Are there any sources that clarify which was the director and screenwriters' intention? Does the DVD commentary help? Ylee ( talk) 07:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
For general info, these little epilogues that Hollywood tacks onto the ends of movies are called "buttons" in the film industry. 108.237.241.88 ( talk) 21:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It happens that Shakespeares manager gets caught up by some men that are rather mafiose. They are grilling the boots he is wearing. Is that not the scene before he places his feet with boots on in a minitub of water? If so, why is the grilling-scene edited away? -- Stat-ist-ikk ( talk) 14:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Shakespeare in Love. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can anyone explain or know the reason why Rupert Everett is not credited for his portrayal of the role of KIT MARLOW???
I'd been wondering about that too. Why WASN't Rupert Everett credited for his performance???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.218.236.93 ( talk) 18:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to know that too. Furthermore i think that the synopsis is rather short. The article is almost a stub.
The chronology explained by the quote "for instance, the colonization of North America by the English did not begin until 1584 and Romeo and Juliet was largely written by 1596 or 1597" seems not to be inconsistent with the plot of the movie. Either a different example of inconsistency was given, or more evidence should be given to show that there could have been no colonization of North America at the time when the movie is set.
All the awards are really unneccesary, but what about the plot or a detailed summary ? even an interpretation or analysis and a hint to the book, that appeared in stores some years ago would be nice!
I have added a synopsis section. Let me go ahead and admit it up front: it is LOOOONG. It is a 137 minute long movie, and the plot is a bit complex. It seems that whenever I tried to edit out a detail, it made something else not make sense. Lets call this a first draft, and if anybody can tighten it up, I think we'd all be grateful. Kjdamrau 06:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Ken Damrau
Is Mercutio's Queen Mab speech regarded the longest speech in Shakespeare? It's only 43 lines whereas Berowne's speech from Love's Labours Lost, Act Four, Scene iii l. 285, is 76 lines long. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.43.204 ( talk) 15:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
A summary does not exist. If somebody has seen the movie or is knowledgeable about it, can you please include one Canking 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I recently watched the movie again, and every time Geoffrey Rush's character clamored for pirates and a dog to be included in the supposed comedy that Shakespeare was to have been writing I chuckled. Subustitue monkey for dog and there's a bit of odd ironic humor in that isn't there? Not to mention that the whole Pirates franchise has great debt to Shakespearian plot devices etc.
A bit of trivia about that title that I wonder if should be included:
The title of the movie is originally the title of a play by Dion Boucicault (the play which I believe is not extant), but is also referenced in the play Two Shakespearean Gentlemen by Richard Nelson, which premiered at The Royal Shakespeare Company, London (in the play the context is that Boucicault is writing Shakespeare in love over the course of the play). While Boucicault's play has no relation to the movie, Stoppard, knowing this, surely lifted the title. Liontamarin 20:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion the plot summary, currently 500 words, isn't excessively long. I've removed the {{ plot}} tag. -- Tony Sidaway 05:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Read the summary today 23rd March 2010 and the last section detailing the Academy Award win sounds highly emotionally charged and I don't feel it belongs in a summary, a Controversy section at best. Scorpiousdelectus ( talk) 14:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Scorpiousdelectus
I added 'drama' to its classification, if only because classifying it as only a "romantic comedy" brings about the stereotypes along with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.120.179 ( talk) 08:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I have the film on tape and have watched it far too many times. The film makes clear that Viola is not "a noblewoman", i.e., of noble birth, but rather the daughter of a rich merchant. "Not so well-born", she tells her nurse, who replies, "well-moneyed is as good as well-born." Indeed, her father pays Lord Wessex, who is broke, to marry her and presumably further ingratiate himself to the noble class. "Your father has bought me for you", Wessex tells Viola. Also note that Viola is well-known to the boatman - "Known her since she was this high." Noblewomen were not on such casual terms with lowly boatmen.
I'll view it again to confirm Viola's social status before recommending any edits to the synopsis.
Rico402 ( talk) 07:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
"Shakespeare In love" is based on an original 5 act stageplay written in 1984 entitled "As You Might Like It" by Michael M. Peters and also a 60 page treatment entitled "The Dark Lady" by Don Ethan Miller and Peter Hassinger. A copy of "As You Might Like It" is in the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C. and the legal briefs are filed under Peters vs. Disney, Miramax et al. in United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, in Sacramento, No. CIV S-01-2362 MCE JFM PS. Miller's copyright infringement case was filed in United States District Court in Los Angeles. These legal papers are a matter of public record. TO EXPLAIN: There is virtually no copyright protection. The FBI has not been given a budget to go after script thieves--and Federal Court judges refuse to uphold what little copyright law there is because of a body of law passed by a Justice Field in the latter part of the 1800's which says that THE INTERESTS OF CORPORATIONS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS. (Writers don't stand a chance against big movie companies.) Currently all a script thief has to do is make cosmetic changes in the script to evade copyright infringement. Note: Peters' stageplay was written based on his own experiences in the theatre and film world (he has two degrees in theatre, has taught at Cal Arts in Valencia, Calif. and has acted in an Equity production of "Romeo and Juliet" in Santa Barbara in 1977). His script was written in Red Bluff, Calif., where he also built a theatre at his old high school, causing the dropout rate there to plunge 15%. He wrote the stageplay one act at a time, without a plot, as a Moliere type of farce. He has had several scripts stolen from him and is actually owed TWO Oscars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.68.12 ( talk) 12:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Marc Norman's son Zack stole Peters' play from him when Peters was teaching at Cal Arts around 1988 (Peters entered the play for an in-house production at Cal Arts and Zack crashed the private campus)--this is all annotated in the legal briefs which are in the public domain. Much of Peters' play "As You Might Like It" was used in the movie, and apparently the screenwriters also used material from "No Bed For Bacon" and "The Dark Lady" as well. So the movie screenplay is a composite. I don't know what other scripts may have been drawn from for use in the screenplay, if there were others. 71.154.158.137 ( talk) 06:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm presently holding in my hand a summary legal brief (condensed from a 120 page legal brief) demonstrating striking similarity between Peters' stageplay "As You Might Like It" and the movie "Shakespeare In Love". The characters are the same: Shakespeare trying to come up with a new play; his girlfriend and her prudish confidante; his rival in love, a pompous bore; Henslowe the theatre manager constantly trying to get Shakespeare to write; and so forth. The five acts of the play are the same: Shakespeare's atelier, an Elizabethan theatre, a bar, the alternate theatre where the new play opens, and back to Shakespeare's atelier. The plots are the same, and these are compared. The theme is the same, a revionistic interpretation of Shakespeare. They are both romantic comedies. There's a page of verbatim phrases and then there's 12 long pages of paraphrased dialog. Then there's several pages of noting similarities, such as both Shakespeares (in the movie and play) having a full head of hair when Shakespeare is normally portrayed as partially bald; Shakespeare writing his name on a small piece of paper; two swordfights at the theatre; the auditions; trying to come up with a title for the play; the Queen issuing that a sack of money be given to Shakespeare; Shakespeare "making out" with his girlfriend at the theatre; Shakespeare writing a poem for his girlfriend; Shakespeare having money problems; the trapdoor in the stage scene; etc., etc. It goes on and on. The interesting thing is that both the movie and the stageplay end with a mystical sea voyage. 71.157.182.121 ( talk) 16:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there any connection to the French play Shakespeare Amoureux, ou la Piéce a L'Etude (Shakespeare in Love) by Alexandre-Vincent Pineux Duval published in 1801 [or 1804]? Ecphora ( talk) 08:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
GOM of the movies Roger Ebert agrees that Straight's screen time was less than Dench's, but he accepts a timing of 7½ minutes. (Roger Ebert's The Great Movies quoted at [1]). May we have a good, strong source for the the recent addition of 5½ minutes? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 16:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Why no discussion in the article about critical reception of the film? I find this quite odd considering the multiple times I have seen critics place this film on their "worst Best Picture-winners" lists. This oversight is especially odd considering there is a section covering critical review on other of the year's Best Picture nominees, but not this one, the winner of the award. 97.127.68.87 ( talk) 10:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
To get back to the issue of lack of critique of the film, after it became known that there were copyright claims, there were no interviews, downstream marketing, spin-offs, sequels, etc. Just click on "Google Search" and you'll find nothing except the screenplay, because a "cloud" (that's the legal term for copyright claim) has been placed on "Shakespeare In Love". If they paid Peters his treatment fee, for instance, the cloud would be lifted and they could do a sequel. I remember Tom Stoppard was on the Charlie Rose show on television and Stoppard wouldn't say a word about "Shakespeare In Love". I did find an interview with Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard in the March, 1999 issue of "Written By", the magazine of the Writers Guild of America, West, before the copyright scandal broke, but little else from people who were directly involved in the film. Apparently, from what I've been able to deduce, everybody was told to shut up about the film because of the copyright infringement matter. 71.154.158.137 ( talk) 10:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
"Prooving" is the obsolete Shakespearean spelling. Peters had sent a copy of his stageplay to the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C., 201 East Capitol Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003, phone: 202/675-0384 fax: 202/675-0328 along with a summary legal brief, where these documents reside in the archives, so I'm assuming someone may have published these. He was doing part time substitute teaching in Northern California, as stated in the Chico News & Review article, after he became disabled working at the Redding Civic Auditorium in Northern California, and had taught theatre and film at California Institute of the Arts in Southern California in the late 1980's, as stated in the article. In California, if you substitute teach you end up teaching every subject under the sun. He's quite literate, having written many theatrical reviews for his local newspaper. He's currently retired. He did publish a war novel based on his experiences in the Vietnam War http://heidelberggraphics.com/stansbury%20Publishing/Lawrence%20of%20Vietnam.htm but it has to do with the Vietnam War, not theatre, although he states that Hollywood has stolen parts of it for at least five different films. --As for Marc Norman, here are some excerpts from the WGA magazine "Written By" issue of March, 1999...Norman swears that he is not a Shakespearean scholar (pg. 19); Norman states that Shakespeare In Love was "...the high-water mark of my ability to bullshit people..." (pg. 21); and Norman says that "It's baffled some people who can't quite figure out where it came from...if you look at my credits, it's not the most likely thing for a Shakespeare project to come out of them." (pgs. 22-23) Production entities in Hollywood are leery of hiring people who have stolen scripts, since it puts the production in fiscal jeopardy. Marc Norman hasn't written another Hollywood movie since "Shakespeare In Love" despite being hailed as a great screenwriter when "Shakespeare In Love" came out. 71.154.158.137 ( talk) 17:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Here are two sources for starters:
http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct_archive/spr99/24a_fr.html
-- Espoo ( talk) 21:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I've always thought that the ship that Viola and her husband sailed on really did sink, and that her survival magically (in the way that only happens in fiction) inspired Shakespeare to write Twelfth Night without knowing about it. About a year ago Stile4aly edited the plot section to state that the shipwreck was purely of Shakespeare's imagination as he wrote the new play. Are there any sources that clarify which was the director and screenwriters' intention? Does the DVD commentary help? Ylee ( talk) 07:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
For general info, these little epilogues that Hollywood tacks onto the ends of movies are called "buttons" in the film industry. 108.237.241.88 ( talk) 21:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It happens that Shakespeares manager gets caught up by some men that are rather mafiose. They are grilling the boots he is wearing. Is that not the scene before he places his feet with boots on in a minitub of water? If so, why is the grilling-scene edited away? -- Stat-ist-ikk ( talk) 14:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Shakespeare in Love. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)