TIFF Movie Review: Anonymous (2011)
It's not without its problems, but this political thriller remains fascinating throughout
Photo: Columbia Pictures
Written by John Orloff (A Mighty Heart), Roland Emmerich's Anonymous is a fascinating look at one of several conspiracies behind the true authorship of the works credited to William Shakespeare. It's smartly presented as a political thriller with an enticing conspiracy at its core. Liberties are taken, but for the most part I think Orloff has done well, attempting to manipulate the story based primarily on the holes in Shakespeare's history in an attempt to craft a solid political thriller surrounding the man who's arguably the greatest writer of all-time.
The cast includes Rhys Ifans, Vanessa Redgrave, Joely Richardson, David Thewlis, Xavier Samuel, Rafe Spall, Jamie Campbell-Bower, Derek Jacobi and Robert Emms. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"Anonymous" is a Columbia Pictures release, directed by Roland Emmerich and is rated PG-13 for some violence and sexual content. The running time is 2 hours 10 minutes.
Reasons range from his lack of education to his final will, which makes no mention of his plays, poems or other writings, including 18 unpublished plays at the time. What could possibly be the reason? Without all the facts, history can be bent and Orloff and Emmerich have bent it in such a way that history still, for the most part, holds true, while telling a story that had me wanting to do research of my own.
Told through several flashes in time, the film primarily takes place in London around the years from 1598 to 1603 with brief flashes back in time 30 years earlier, when De Vere (played at a young age by Jamie Campbell Bower) was taken in as ward of Queen Elizabeth I following his father's death and was subsequently educated by Sir William Cecil (David Thewlis). Cecil saw in Edward an opportunity and had hopes of grooming a king, but Edward's love of writing finds him out of favor. Yet, with continued hope in his plan, Cecil still marries him off to his daughter Anne.
Edward posing as Shakespeare comes about several years later as he hopes to thwart the Cecils' plan to seat King James as the future King of England following Elizabeth's reign. He sees power in the playhouse and decides his words will be enough to move the people to stand up for themselves, but doing it under his own name would be suicide. Therefore he seeks out playwright Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) to take up the task of representing the plays as his own, but after confiding in William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall), Jonson decides he cannot do it, an opportunity Shakespeare jumps on following a rousing performance of "Henry V" credited to Anonymous and the crowd begins demanding to know the author. Shakespeare takes the stage and the rest is… history?
The greatest aspect of Anonymous is the conspiracy at its core and the way it's presented. In matters of the heart and politics, I found it fascinating. There are enough questions with regard to Shakespeare that a conspiracy can be levied, and even if you entirely disagree in any such conspiracies I think Anonymous offers a fascinating "what if?"
The performances are, for the most part, top notch with Rhys Ifans standing tall as the Earl of Oxford with a commanding, elegant and dominating performance. Redgrave offers a uniquely fragile look at Queen Elizabeth, following in the footsteps of recent portrayals by Cate Blanchett (Elizabeth) and the Oscar winning turn by Judi Dench (Shakespeare in Love). I also like the decision to cast Redgrave's actual daughter, Joely Richardson, to play a younger version of the actress and Edward Hogg adeptly slithers through scenes as the hunchbacked and loathsome Robert Cecil.
I did have problems with some of the shortcuts that were taken, such as a scene where Edward is shuffling through his many plays, setting aside "Macbeth," "Twelfth Night," etc. before settling on "Romeo and Juliet." Maybe it's just me, but I didn't like the idea he just had these masterworks sitting around waiting to be handed off to whomever came by and when he needed to he could just scribble out "Richard III" in a matter of minutes.
There's also little emphasis placed on why Edward was choosing each play as he handed them off. Sometimes it was obvious, particularly with "Richard III", but I still have a hard time figuring out why he would choose "Romeo and Juliet" outside of the possibility he simply believed it was a great play that would improve Shakespeare's public awareness and therefore create greater attention to his later works. Unfortunately, none of that is really addressed. I like when a filmmaker leaves things for the audience to piece together, but this felt like an overlooked piece of the story.
Otherwise, I was consistently entertained and I hope people don't dismiss this film or look at it as "A decent film considering Roland Emmerich directed it." That's to judge it for who made it not for what it is. You would never guess the director of Independence Day and 2012 had anything to do with this movie. It's subdued and without grand movements or Earth shattering disasters. It's measured and accomplished with very few holes that can be poked. Don't dismiss it as an Emmerich film, see it as a fascinating picture of political intrigue and mystery.
In the end, whether you believe Shakespeare was the true author, believe it was de Vere or if you follow the Stratfordian contention that Shakespeare "borrowed" from the works of others, as far as this film is concerned, your belief is of no concern. Anonymous is simply telling a story based on a theory that can only be argued not proven. The only real truth to come out of the film is that the words credited to Shakespeare are, were and always will be powerful and that is impossible to argue against no matter who wrote them.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 14 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Emmerich movies have always been guilty pleasures of mine so I was secretly looking forward to this, especially as the plot sounded interesting. Glad to hear that it is actually good as opposed to just "Emmerich good".
Great review, Brad! This has been one of my most anticipated films of the year and after Laremy mentioned in this week's Oracle that "Anonymous" was his #1 film from TIFF I was dying to see a review.
How many historical monuments blow up in this?
None, except for the burning down of the Globe Theatre about nine years before it actually burned down.
I saw the film as well– and the question you had about the plays "hanging around" I think was answered earlier– Oxford tells Jonson in the garden that he (oxford) wrote many plays– all performed at court years earlier. Sort of "Court Masques" I assume (like we saw Midsummer in the beginning). What else would he do with them after they were performed at Court? Nothing… until he realizes he can have them performed in the NEW public theaters.
I didn't take the MacBeth and Romeo etc to be necessarily political– i took it as he's building his audience, his fan base, so when he DOES go for the crown, he has a fan base to listen to him (when he does Richard III).
RE: Globe theater– I'm not sure it the Globe that burns down– there were several theaters at the time!
IF you do want to read more on this, Bill Bryson's "Shakespeare" does a remarkably friendly job of explaining exactly why Shakespeare is the author of his plays. The other theories all fall apart and the mysteries of Shakespeare's life are simply because the time in which he lived are not ones with lots of records unless you were noble. Screw Emmerich.
It is a film exploring the idea of theory and simply debating it. It is not right or wrong. I enjoy the 'Shakespeare' works, but I also find the other theories very interesting. J.T. Looney in example, Looney's argument, by his own account, originated out of a belief that the 'Merchant of Venice' must have been written by a man who knew Italy and Italian life at first hand, which meant that it could not have been an actor from Stratford.
There is such class snobbery in Britain. The old boys’ network refuses to believe that someone with such little education and privilege could have written such masterworks, hence why all these conspiracy theories exist regarding the authorship of Shakespeare's plays and sonnets.
Sounds interesting for me. I know that at some point, someone will make a movie about Shakespear's authorship of his plays. I've read most of Shakespear's play and there have been times when I'll read a scene and it feels different. It's like someone wrote that scene and Shakespear. Maybe that's just me, but i don't know. When i was reading McBeth, when the 3 witches came back again to McBeth, the language use was different. It didn't feel shakespearn at all. Who knows, but the authorship of these masterful plays of this one great man or even a woman, will always be mystery to us.
The film is going to be very interesting. I have read many of the other explinations to who could be the true author of the 'Shakespeare' works. The argument of Bacon is an interesting one, according to Baconians the plays display a profound knowledge of the Law, only a practising lawyer could have written them.
Whoever wrote the plays of Shakespeare was a person passionately attached to theater – why not an actor with a good ear and enough of an education to have acquired the ability to read the Bible, poetry, and the works of his contemporaries? I'm sure the comedy often came from ad libbing by ham actors who were the darlings of their day (even beloved of the Queen). It was a world maybe like television writing – fast-paced, making some of it up as they go along. So yes, collaborative to a degree. The fancy stuff by the Bard is nothing a super smart middle class person could not have done. Look who makes all the revolutions? His dad was an illiterate glove maker, wasn't he, but I seem to recall that Will's father was the mayor of the town. This wasn't a boy without background. Look at the nice property the family owned and also later further acquired in Stratford. These were the same types who created New England a few years later. Whereas the gentry founded the South, with all its problems creating any sort of middle class.
So here goes: this movie is yet another attack on the middle class. But we won't go gently into that good night!
I think Emmerich did a wonderful job with this film. He knows what he is talking about and is passionate about it. If you haven't seen the video of him explaining why he think Shakespeare was a fraud, you should watch it.
http://youtu.be/zXhR0PFLkqs
Maybe he can persuade you.
Mr. Emmerich,
did an excellence motion picture.
He knows every part of the hole story.
Wich involves him in a special kind of district,
sorrounded by figures, concerning a world full of
conceptions, puppet musters and confusions,
including one actor who has the hole Histotry chapter
in his Hands…