By SUNSHINE OSELLA
Features Editor
PUBLISHED November 15, 2011
A movie that is based on the idea of William Shakespeare not being the true author of his massive collected works makes many Shakespeare lovers nervous. Yet, Anonymous is not lacking in literary allusions and entertaining qualities that can appeal to non Shakespeare lovers and professed admirers alike.
This film takes the previously existing “theory”, that Shakspeare’s works were actually written by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, and examines it. Director Roland Emmerich (The Patriot) and writer John Orloff follow this idea and put it against the backdrop of two of England’s most significant events of the time: the succession of Queen Elizabeth I and the Essex rebellion of 1601.
The plot is intricate, sometimes to the point of being confusing. There are many subplots surrounding Edward, The Earl of Oxford’s (Rhys Ifans) writing abilities. The structure of the movie is constant shifts from past to present without any warning. It is also not always the same time period in that past that it is shifting to, which adds to the confusion.
There are many relationships and characters to keep track of. There is the relationship between Queen Elizabeth I and Edward. Queen Elizabeth I also relies heavily on the advisement of the Cecil family who are the villains in this story. The connection between Edward and the Cecil family and their uneasy relationship with each other. So it goes on and on.
Despite the many opportunities to become confused when watching this movie, it is full of good qualities. The movie focuses on the power of words, which is very appropriate considering the content. It could even be argued that this movie is making a statement that words are 100 times more powerful than weapons and actions.
Edward makes a statement that all plays are political. Emmerich seems to use this idea as the main argument for the truth behind Edward being the true author of Shakespeare’s plays. Edward is given his own reasons for having an opinion about the succession of the throne. As a noble, it is also suggested that he would have more political investment than a commoner like Shakespeare.
William Shakespeare, played by Rafe Spall, is a delight to watch as he excellently plays an ambitious idiot. Even with respect for Shakespeare, it was enjoyable to watch as he was made out to be a basically illiterate whore-monger. Shakespeare is portrayed as a mediocre, shallow actor who dishonestly pounces on opportunity in order to gain money and notice. This film even goes as far as to make him out to be a blackmailer and murderer, which turns out to be comical and entertaining to watch.
Disappointment surrounds the character of Ben Jonson, played by Sebastian Armesto. One of the beginning scenes starts with the introduction of Jonson as he is chased by the monarch’s men. The movie than commences its first time shift in which Edward watches one of Jonson’s plays performed and then offers to pay him to pass off the Earl’s plays as his own. After these beginning scenes it seems as if Jonson is going to be an active, main character, but he kind of fades into the background in the middle of the movie and does not resurface until the end, at which time he plays a crucial role. The viewer is left wanting more development of his character because he takes on the persona of a hero.
Many events in the life of Edward are mirrored in Shakespeare’s plays which will appeal to Shakespeare aficionados. It is fascinating to watch Hamlet come to life in Edward’s youth. Shakespeare’s plays are not the only literary allusions used. At one point, Sir Robert Cecil (Edward Hogg) even uses old Greek theater to insult Edward further.
As the play draws to a close, an allusion is made to Ben Jonson’s famous poem on Shakespeare. “To the Memory of My Beloved the Author, Mr. William Shakespeare”, this was a nice way of drawing all the content to a close.
The costumes were impressive and the details meticulous. On Edward’s right hand, he has a couple fingers that are permanently stained with ink. This simple addition paints the picture of a dedicated writer. This was such a wonderful detail that added to the richness and development of the overall feel of the play.
Anonymous is, in no way, historically accurate. Yet, that is not the point of this film, it is simply bring a longstanding theory to life. It just speculates about what it might have been like if things had happened differently than what the majority believes.
The movie never seems to sway the watcher either way in believing or disbelieving this story. It gives the viewer the freedom to decide on his/her own. It simply tells a story of deception, love, poetry, and political hardships in a richly historical period.
