Why Has There Never Been a Genuine Biopic of Shakespeare?

Plenty of Biofics, But Not One Biopic

Of course, there have been films about Shakespeare, especially in the last decade, when two significant anniversaries have been celebrated: the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death in 2016, and the 400th anniversary of the publication of The First Folio, the first complete (or nearly complete) collection of Shakespeare’s plays, in 2023. Without The First Folio, half of his plays, which include classics such as Macbeth, Antony and Cleopatra, and The Tempest, might never have survived. 

However, most of these films about Shakespeare are not biopics but biofics: fictionalized or even downright faked depictions of Shakespeare’s life.

‘Shakespeare in Love’ (1998)

The classic example of a biofic of Shakespeare is, of course, Shakespeare in Love (1998), which was a global box-office smash and won the Best Picture Oscar at the following year’s Oscars (one of seven Oscars it won among a total of 13 nominations). It is a fine film, and writers Marc Norman and the great Tom Stoppard had the good sense to include extensive quotations from Shakespeare. In particular, they quote liberally from Romeo and Juliet, the classic love story that is mirrored in the film by Shakespeare’s adoration of Viola de Lesseps, the daughter of a rich man who dreams of being an actor and consequently disguises herself as a man so she can audition for Shakespeare.

Yet more than a quarter-century on, one of my own abiding memories of Shakespeare in Love was the unforgettable (or at least unforgettably titled) article, ‘Tis true, ’tis pity, and pity ’tis, ’tis true. ‘Tis total tosh, after its Oscar triumph by Howard Jacobson, in the Independent. “Tosh,” meaning rubbish or garbage in English slang, may be a bit strong, but Jacobson was right to point out that the film is entirely fictionalized, with little or no basis in reality.

Similar Shakespeare films—biofics, not biopics—have followed in the 21st century, with the most egregious being Anonymous (2011), a sorta-Shakespeare blockbuster directed by Roland “Independence Day” Emmerich and written by John Orloff. It is based on arguably the oldest and most transparently nonsensical conspiracy that William Shakespeare did not write any of the plays bearing his name. Instead, Orloff and Emmerich argue that Shakespeare was just a front for Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, who was the real author behind the most famous plays of all time.

‘Anonymous’ (2011)

This class-based conspiracy theory, rooted in the notion that an actor with modest means and education like the one from Stratford-upon-Avon couldn’t have authored a single outstanding play, let alone over 20, is troubling. While it’s already concerning when perpetuated by class-conscious English individuals, it becomes even more problematic when embraced by non-English people. They should possess the perspective to recognize the fallacy of such class-based restrictions, which persist in England today. 

There have been two other Shakespeare films in the last decade that are more grounded in fact than Shakespeare in Love and far more grounded in reality than Anonymous: Bill (2015) and All Is True (2018).

However, it is notable that even the more refined Shakespeare biofics focus on specific periods of Shakespeare’s life. In Bill, attention centers on the “lost years” or the inception of his career, while All Is True delves into the later stages of his life, post-retirement from the London stage, as he returned to Stratford. It is as if no filmmaker has ever dared contemplate telling the whole story of Shakespeare’s life, from birth to death, even though it only lasted for 52 years.

‘All Is True’ (2018)

It’s Not Just in Cinema That Shakespeare Is Absent

It’s not just in cinema that Shakespeare, or at least a truthful depiction of his life, is absent. Remarkably, the same is true of theater. In a wonderful and witty 2016 article in The Guardian, “Where’s Willy? Why there are so few plays about Shakespeare,” Mark Lawson considered why there had been so few plays about the greatest playwright who has ever lived.

Lawson documents the history of the few plays written about Shakespeare, concluding that the only notable ones are by Edward Bond (Bingo: Scenes of Money and Death (1973), which, like the film All Is True, concentrates on Shakespeare’s dotage in Stratford) and, almost unbelievably, a 10-minute puppet play by George Bernard Shaw called Shakes versus Shav (1949), which pits Shakespeare against Shaw himself as if they were a literary Punch and Judy show.

Craig Pearce, Baz Luhrmann’s regular collaborator (even on the sublime 1996 Romeo + Juliet), scripted the 2017 TNT series Will, which, like the film Bill, focused on Shakespeare’s early life. 

‘Romeo + Juliet’ (1996)

Why Are There So Few Films, Plays, or TV Series About Shakespeare, or at Least Good Ones?

Why are there so few films, plays, or TV series about Shakespeare, or at least good ones, and, in particular, why has there never been a genuine biopic of the Bard, one that at least attempted to tell the whole story of his life?

Well, in one sense, the question provides its answer, in that all dramatic media traditionally fail to tell the whole story of a life
because they are usually limited, to use Shakespeare’s famous phrase from Romeo and Juliet, to “two hours’ traffic,” whether on a stage or a screen.

As Aristotle famously suggested with his three classical or dramatic “unities,” it is far easier to tell the story of a particular period or event in a person’s life rather than try and tell the whole story of their life. It’s probably best for a book to handle that, particularly in Shakespeare’s case, where his many biographers, ranging from Jorge Luis Borges to Anthony Burgess, have taken on the task.

Shakespeare

In addition, there is the added difficulty of filming a writer’s life. As any writer knows, the daily life of a writer consists largely of sitting alone in a room writing, or, to be more precise, thinking about writing, which is inherently difficult to dramatize and usually necessitates leaving the writer in the room and journeying elsewhere, if only imaginatively. And that is as true of Shakespeare, the greatest writer who ever lived, as it is of any writer, if not truer.

Finally, as Lawson suggested, there is the crucial question of voice—the difficulty of putting words in the mouth of a great dramatist, whose own stock in trade was putting words (usually unforgettable ones) in the mouths of his characters.

Some writers, such as George Bernard Shaw, have even tried to put the words of Shakespeare or at least the rhythm of Shakespeare’s language—the iambic pentameter, or the written equivalent of the human heartbeat, with ten syllables per line and alternating stressed and unstressed syllables—in the mouth of their Shakespeare, with relatively limited success. 

Others, like Edward Bond in Bingo, have had Shakespeare speak more recognizably modern English in stark contrast with the more antiquated language or dialect of the characters around him, suggesting that he is, quite literally, a man out of time.

Ultimately, the sheer difficulty of putting words in Shakespeare’s mouth, which, of course, is essential in a dramatic medium such as film or theater, suggests that only Shakespeare himself, with his colossal command of language and indeed unrivaled linguistic inventiveness, could have written lines for a “Shakespeare” in a play or film.

‘Shakespeare in Love’ (1998)

—

Now, it is time to declare my profound interest in this subject. Not only have I studied Shakespeare all my life, including at the Shakespeare Institute in Stratford on Avon, but I have also always loved cinema. This has made me wonder why there has never been a genuine Shakespeare biopic.

Which is why I chose to write one… but that’s a story for another time.

Read More: Real Drama: Scripts You Should Read If You’re Writing a Biopic