By Chlotrudis Independent Film Society
Rating: 2.5 cats
Director: Roland Emmerich
Starring: David Thewlis | Derek Jacobi | Edward Hogg | Helen Baxendale | Joley Richardson | Mark Rylance | Rafe Spall | Rhys Ifans | Sam Reid | Sebastian Amesto | Trystan Gravelle | Vanessa Redgrave | Xavier Samuel
Country: germany, united_kingdom
Year: 2011
Running time: 137
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1521197/
Diane says: “Is this really eligible? Very Hollywood in production design, camerawork, dialogue and hair. A story of who really wrote Shakespeare’s plays (in this version, Edward Devere), amid a lot of court intrigue.
“Vanessa Redgrave is wonderful as the aged Queen Elizabeth, inside still a sexy young woman. Will Shakespeare is an illiterate actor in the troupe, with a dialect like one of the comedic voices Steve Coogan does in THE TRIP. Unfortunately, much of the story is carried by the character of Ben Jonson, mawkish and unappealing. But you’ll get a bit of a history lesson, and you will come out convinced that only Devere could have written those fine plays. 3 cats on its own level, 2 compared to good indies.”
Marilyn says: “I was appalled at how awful this movie is. Because they shot it with such cinematic authenticity doesn’t cover up all its sins….unbelievable characters and story, lack of credibility—I realize no one sets out to make a bad movie but everyone involved here drank the kool-aid.”
Thom says: “I suppose I was all set to like this film because it was about my beloved William Shakespeare. But it wasn’t. Instead it made claim that all of Shakespeare’s work was actually written by the Earl of Oxford but due to political and social reasons he had to give the credit to someone else, Shakespeare. This is quite a leap of faith with almost no written evidence of any kind, only supposition. And then to make Shakespeare a silly, pompous buffoon only to make ‘us’ the audience embrace the ‘true’ authorship. Then they try to make us believe that Queen Elizabeth actually had a son by the aforementioned Earl of Oxford, oh please , what bullshit. Then they have the audacity to not concentrate on the plays, only to use them as amusing asides. Oh sure, the production values are superb and the actors, especially Redgrave, are on, but to make something so audacious is well beyond the point of the Shakespeare canon. In truth, it makes absolutely no difference at all who wrote these greatest plays ever written. If I had no intellectual acumen concerning this visionary genius I might have enjoyed the film as a historical thriller, but that isn’t the case. 1 cat”
Bruce says: “For those patient enough to sit through the list of gaffers and drivers at the end of ANONYMOUS, there is a
disclaimer stating ‘this is a total work of fiction.’ Of course most viewers may well have figured that out given the number of
preposterous relationships and turns of events contained in the film. Yes, there is great confusion and debate over Shakespeare’s plays just as there is over Elizabeth I’s romantic life. ANONYMOUS playfully fills in the blanks in what I view as an entertaining way. Other artists are known to take great license to create their art. For example, Philip Roth is equally playful
in The Plot Against America where Charles Lindbergh, the communist hating Nazi sympathizer, defeats FDR in the 1940 Presidential election. Accurate? Not in the slightest. It is merely a literary device – an alternate history.
“The premise of the film is that Edward De Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford was the true author of all works attributed to
Shakespeare. Because of his position – the Oxford peerage is the oldest in England – he cannot risk his family name, fortune and reputation by penning his name to his plays and sonnets. The plot is silly as De Vere is made to be the son of Elizabeth I; her lover; and the father of one of her secret bastard children.
“Other candidates for true authorship posed by Anti-Stratfordians are the 6th Earl of Derby, Francis Bacon and Christopher Marlowe. The film does include Marlowe as a character but ignores Derby and Bacon, presumably because there wasn’t enough potboiling material to include them or director Emmerich and writer John Orloff decided that by including them they would have a muddled mini-series rather than an entertaining film.
“The backdrop of the film concerns great political intrigue largely due to the nefarious scheming of William Cecil and his son Robert who advised Elizabeth while keeping both people and facts from getting in their way. In ANONYMOUS, both Cecils despise the theatre, largely because they find the truth behind art threatening to their agenda. Other subplots include the rivalry between Ben Jonson and Shakespeare; the Earl of Essex’s exile to Ireland and attempt to overthrow the government; and the Earl of Southampton, supposed son of Elizabeth and De Vere who is linked both politically and romantically to Essex.
“Sadly both Shakespeare and Jonson are made to look like idiots which undermines the film’s premise to a certain degree. True,
Jonson’s reputation is chequered; but poor Will is featured as a bad actor and an ambitious theatrical manager who grabs the credit when Jonson does not claim the plays as his own, according to De Vere’s wishes. Equally mysterious is the reluctance of Anne De Vere, daughter of William Cecil, to reveal her husband’s authorship of the plays; hers is a bitter, loveless marriage and she ostensibly has the motivation to expose her husband.
“Redgrave, Thewlis, Spall, Rylance, Ifans and Richardson are particularly wonderful in their roles. The others offer ample
support. The set design is terrific as are the costumes. In the end I did not take ANONYMOUS any more seriously than SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE; I simply had myself a good time. 3 1/2 cats”