William Shakespeare and indeed for that matter, Elizabeth I will be turning in their graves. Anonymous should have been an intelligent polemic about the identity of history's greatest English writer. It should have been brain food for the masses – thought provoking, intriguing, stimulating – and capable of generating critical debate in the cafes and bars of this country. Sadly, it is none of these things. Instead, the director, Roland Emmerich, has already made up his mind and has shamelessly reduced Shakespeare to a bumbling opportunistic bit actor on the make. Worse still, there is a hint that the great writer has no appreciation of the literary arts and is in fact semi-illiterate and hates books! Unfortunately, this clumsy characterisation reveals a huge structural contradiction in the script. Shakespeare was an actor and thus had to learn lines and in the delivery of those lines, in order to be considered a commercial success, had to be appreciative of the contextualisation, nuances and meaning of the very words he has to read, learn, speak and presumably act! How is it possible then that Shakespeare could have been portrayed as an ignorant and uneducated oaf who dislikes reading?!? It gets worse; Shakespeare's anonymity is wrapped around a ludicrous back story of English politics in which Elizabeth has to protect her reputation by hiding the number of illegitimate children she has borne as a lustful young queen. Chief amongst these outlandish and simply laughable claims is the idea that Edward De Vere, the Earl of Oxford (who actually wrote all those plays, poems and sonnets according to Emmerich), is actually one of Elizabeth's (many) bastard sons and in a love scene that will have you squirming in your seat for its sheer absurdity unwittingly commits incest in their youth. This is exacerbated by yet another deception in which Henry Wriothesley, the Earl of Southampton, is shown to be the bastard offspring of that early night of lust between De Vere and Elizabeth. So not only has De Vere slept with his own mother, he has also produced offspring with her. Talk about keeping it in the family!! I could go on. What about Will Shakespeare (the real one, not De Vere) bumping off Kit (Christopher) Marlowe because he was going to spill the beans on the truth, or Robert Devereux, the Earl of Essex, rebelling in 1601 to protect the queen (from her advisers) rather than attempting to overthrow her. Any student of history or anyone just interested in Tudor history will be astonished, amazed and ultimately disappointed by such bizarre claims with no supporting historical evidence whatsoever.
These illogical claims simply ruin the film and its main premise to intelligently explore the debate surrounding Shakespeare's identity. If Emmerich's intention was to stimulate debate in this topic he has unwittingly achieved the reverse because nobody (in their right mind, unless you believe that the Apollo moon landings was a huge cover up or that there is a large alien spaceship in the Nevada desert hidden by the US government) can accept these facetious claims even on face value. If, however, you do believe that the human race is the progeny of an alien race and their landing marks are etched out in the Atacama Desert then you will lap up Emmerich's allegations like a thirsty dog, but please do continue to count sheep in your straitjacket.
There are two saving graces in the film. The first is Rhys Ifans and the second is Mark Rylance. Ifans has serious acting talent and should dispense with the comedic roles that got him started in 'Notting Hill' and which he continues to peddle in rubbish like 'The Boat that Rocked'. Not only does he look the part but he makes the film work with his examination of De Vere as a Renaissance Man who understands the power of words and their ability to politicise the 'mob' (masses) in an age when social hierarchy is strictly observed and enforced. A back story concerning De Vere's intellectual renaissance would have rounded his character out but that is not Ifans's fault rather than the scriptwriter's remiss. Rylance plays one of the actor's in Shakespeare's theatre troupe, 'The Chamberlain's Men' and as a renowned and talented theatre director, playwright and actor himself, gives meaning, nuance and beauty to Shakespeare's words during the film. The best thing Emmerich did was to cast Rylance to mouth the Bard's words and legend has it that somebody more in tune with theatre direction directed the play's scenes in the film (perhaps Rylance himself). I hate to think what rubbish the film would have become if Emmerich had directed these scenes himself when his own filmic upbringing taught him to describe a film (the concept) in as few words as possible on the back of a post it note (Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer you have a lot to answer for).
Let's be generous. Despite these severe drawbacks the film is ravishing to look at and rather enjoyable in a 'Hello' kind of way (not to be taken too seriously or in this instance not seriously at all). All the central performances are great and the music reminds you of 'Shakespeare in Love' (another flawed but ultimately superior and more believable romp through Shakespeare's life as a playwright). The best thing about the film, however, is its emphasis on the power of words, the beauty of Shakespearean verse (whether in iambic pentameter or not) and an interest in English literary tradition. If this film is able to inspire children in schools to study Shakespeare and literature so much the better. For English and for that matter, History teachers as well, 'Anonymous' will be a welcome addition to their DVD collection to be shown to their students at the end of term.
These illogical claims simply ruin the film and its main premise to intelligently explore the debate surrounding Shakespeare's identity. If Emmerich's intention was to stimulate debate in this topic he has unwittingly achieved the reverse because nobody (in their right mind, unless you believe that the Apollo moon landings was a huge cover up or that there is a large alien spaceship in the Nevada desert hidden by the US government) can accept these facetious claims even on face value. If, however, you do believe that the human race is the progeny of an alien race and their landing marks are etched out in the Atacama Desert then you will lap up Emmerich's allegations like a thirsty dog, but please do continue to count sheep in your straitjacket.
There are two saving graces in the film. The first is Rhys Ifans and the second is Mark Rylance. Ifans has serious acting talent and should dispense with the comedic roles that got him started in 'Notting Hill' and which he continues to peddle in rubbish like 'The Boat that Rocked'. Not only does he look the part but he makes the film work with his examination of De Vere as a Renaissance Man who understands the power of words and their ability to politicise the 'mob' (masses) in an age when social hierarchy is strictly observed and enforced. A back story concerning De Vere's intellectual renaissance would have rounded his character out but that is not Ifans's fault rather than the scriptwriter's remiss. Rylance plays one of the actor's in Shakespeare's theatre troupe, 'The Chamberlain's Men' and as a renowned and talented theatre director, playwright and actor himself, gives meaning, nuance and beauty to Shakespeare's words during the film. The best thing Emmerich did was to cast Rylance to mouth the Bard's words and legend has it that somebody more in tune with theatre direction directed the play's scenes in the film (perhaps Rylance himself). I hate to think what rubbish the film would have become if Emmerich had directed these scenes himself when his own filmic upbringing taught him to describe a film (the concept) in as few words as possible on the back of a post it note (Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer you have a lot to answer for).
Let's be generous. Despite these severe drawbacks the film is ravishing to look at and rather enjoyable in a 'Hello' kind of way (not to be taken too seriously or in this instance not seriously at all). All the central performances are great and the music reminds you of 'Shakespeare in Love' (another flawed but ultimately superior and more believable romp through Shakespeare's life as a playwright). The best thing about the film, however, is its emphasis on the power of words, the beauty of Shakespearean verse (whether in iambic pentameter or not) and an interest in English literary tradition. If this film is able to inspire children in schools to study Shakespeare and literature so much the better. For English and for that matter, History teachers as well, 'Anonymous' will be a welcome addition to their DVD collection to be shown to their students at the end of term.