Shakespeare in Love
In the writing Shakespeare in Love Lehmann’s central thesis could be of many different choices. However, the best central thesis would be saying, “Shakespeare in Love poses a theory of authorial production that is grounded in the conspicuous consumption of the female flesh, redefining the “dirty work” of the postmodern auteur not in the spirit of Shakespeare’s early modern legacy, but in the flesh of late capitalism’s dirty deals to commodify the body itself, all the while disguising this mission as a labor of love” (213). Lehmann’s argument to support this thesis is, “The more that art imitates life and work mirrors play in Shakespeare in Love, the more the film suggests the naturalization of the industrial cycle of commodity production in the healthy, buffed surfaces of Will’s laboring body” (224). I disagree with Lehmann’s thesis, because she is saying that capitalism is bad whereas in the film makes it look as good. Also, by comparing love as capitalism in society are two different problems and altogether a new essay. Saying that capitalism and sex go hand and hand is something so new and not really any real factual information. Also in the movie people making money are seen as bad and they good people are consuming. She classifies as two types of capitalism. Production is bad because people are making money, where is late is consumption and is best described by sex. This reflects modern day society, because we are consuming more than we are producing.
Lehmann’s conflation of Marxism and feminism prove problematic for her support. Also with women not allowed to be on stage supports her theory however, there are many things that disprove the theory. The film was made shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union and ended the theory on Marxism as better than capitalism. Also throughout the world by saying if everyone ended capitalism love would end is a ridiculous belief. In places such as Cuban women are still not thought of as equal and...