Anonymous (I) (2011) User Reviews (160)

Anonymous -- Hacking history

[UncleTantra · 8/10 · 22 January 2012]

These days, the term "Anonymous" conjures up visions of unknown activists trying to influence history from the wings. They write things, and that writing changes society. In his film of the same name, director Roland Emmerich seems to be suggesting that this idea is not exactly new, and that the plays and poems attributed to William Shakespeare were essentially motivated by the same desire. He takes the age-old mystery of "Who really wrote Shakespeare's plays?" and turns it into a political thriller.

If it's difficult for you to imagine a historical costume drama done by the director of "Universal Soldier," "Stargate," "Independence Day," "Godzilla," "The Day After Tomorrow" and "2012," you are not alone. :-) I suspected that the screenplay (by John Orloff) came first, and that Emmerich discovered it and became enamored of it, and a quick trip to the IMDb verifies that this intuition was correct. It also informs me that Emmerich, taking advantage of the money he made on the previous films, paid for this whole movie out of his own pocket, so that he could have full control of the film, without interference from any studio. It shows.

It's not a bad movie at all. And this is something I never thought I'd find myself saying about a Roland Emmerich movie. The cast is simply to die for: Vanessa Redgrave as Queen Elizabeth the elder; her daughter Joely Richardson as Elizabeth the younger; Rafe Spall as Shakespeare (a talentless clod of an actor); Sebastian Arnesto as Ben Johnson (a talented playwright, but not even in the same galaxy of greatness as the author of Shakespeare's plays); David Thewlis as William Cecil; Edward Hogg as Robert Cecil; Derek Jacobi doing the prologue; Jaime Campbell Bower (from "Camelot") as the younger Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford; and Rhys Ifans as the older Edward de Vere, and the real author of Shakespeare's work.

As presented, the plot is not at all a scholarly argument for the Earl of Oxford's authorship of these plays. It is instead a clever reimagining of historical events (some treated as loosely as Shakespeare himself treated actual history) to turn the answer to the mystery that scholars argue about into a taut political thriller. In Orloff's/Emmerich's vision, Edward de Vere wrote the plays and published them under someone else's name for no less a reason that to foment revolution, change the course of history, and determine the next king of England.

And damnit, that reimagining kinda worked for me. The sets and costumes are pitch perfect, the performances are good, and the potential is there for a good time to be had by all. Like anything related to Shakespeare, the more you know about him and his work, the better this film will be for you. There are so many asides and in-jokes that I cannot begin to go into them. Orloff really did his research. Except for the part about Edward de Vere having died before at least 10 of Shakespeare's plays were written, that is. But that's just a nitpick, and should not stand in the way of writing a good drama. Those kinds of historical nitpicks did not deter Shakespeare, and they don't deter Orloff and Emmerich. All of them understand that "The play's the thing," and that history doesn't mean diddleysquat compared to that.

Anonymous = Entertainment

[alangsco · 7/10 · 9 November 2011]

First thing to point out. When going to watch this movie I had no intention whatsoever to judge it on its historical accuracy. I simply did not and do not care. If you want a documentary on Elizabethan times then clearly you shouldn't be watching this particular film.

If, on the other hand, you want a perfectly entertaining and interesting way to spend a couple of hours then you should go and see it. I thought the story was engaging and original (if, like myself, you're not a pretentious academic). The acting was, on the whole, very accomplished. In particular, I thought Rhys Ifans gave a brilliant performance as De Vere and was perfect for the role. I did find Rafe Spall pretty annoying as Shakespeare, but perhaps I should give him the benefit of the doubt as this was probably the aim of the character.

With regards to the historical rewrite then surely if people are interested in what 'Anonymous' suggests they'll try to find out more about the subject in order to make their own mind up. Nothing wrong with that. And those taking Hollywood's version of history at face value are pretty much beyond help anyway.

Certainly one of the most memorable movies i've seen (for the right reasons) this year.

A Play By Any Other Name ...

[ferguson-6 · 6/10 · 30 October 2011]

Greetings again from the darkness. While it is clear that writer John Orloff and director Roland Emmerich believe that Edward De Vere, The Earl of Oxford, and not Will Shakespeare, wrote the infamous and iconic plays we have celebrated for 400 years, my advice is to watch this as a Hollywood movie and not a docu-drama. Hollywood is at its best when exaggerating, twisting and dramatizing historic events and figures.

You may be an expert on Shakespeare and even Elizabethan history, but whether you are or whether you are not, my guess is that you will find this to be interesting and thought-provoking. You may agree with the idea that Shakespeare was not the prolific and talented author, but this movie provides one possible alternative ... with no scientific proof or actual documentation. We see Rhys Ifans and Jamie Campbell Bower portray Edward De Vere as the older and younger version respectively. Both capture his passion for writing and frustration at being unable to live the life for which he was born.

Vanessa Redgrave and her real life daughter Joely Richardson portray Queen Elizabeth at the older and younger stages, and we certainly get a distinctive impression of how "the Virgin Queen" may have been mis-labeled as much as any figure in history. Many lovers and illegitimate children are mentioned and the web of secrecy would have been exhausting, given the other responsibilities of her position.

Rafe Spall portrays Will Shakespeare as what one might call The Village Idiot. The buffoonery we see from this man is an extreme that weakens the case for De Vere, rather than strengthen it. Though talented writer Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) was De Vere's first choice, the lack of morals by the illiterate actor Shakespeare allows him to seize a capitalistic opportunity and soak up the audience love.

The best part of the film is the realistic look and feel of the streets, the Globe Theater and costumes. Rhys Ifans is exceptional in the role of De Vere, and the story itself plays out much like one of Shakespeare's plays. The downside is, I believe most will find the multitude of characters and time-lines and sub-plots to be quite confusing at times. Don't take a bathroom break or you'll miss new babies being born and upheavals being planned.

Was Shakespeare a front?

[PWNYCNY · 31 October 2011]

Was William Shakespeare a front for an aristocrat who did not want his name revealed as the author? This movie is about political intrigue and how theater gets caught up in a larger struggle for power. The movie offers an interesting and controversial portrayal of Queen Elizabeth I and a glimpse of life in England at the beginning of the seventeenth century. The printing press was becoming a political weapon and those who published could influence the public, maybe to the point of rebellion. Hence, the need of the government to control what was being performed on stage. The stage served the same function of television does today. It was the medium of mass entertainment, which made the playwright a critical player in the politics of the time. Now, if Shakespeare was a front, then the question is: who wrote all these plays? Maybe it doesn't matter who actually wrote the plays but then again, maybe it does matter because by knowing the author, this may lead to new interpretations of the plays. Maybe these plays were political polemics produced under the guise of historical drama. Whatever the case, one thing is for certain: these plays made an impact on society that continues to reverberate to this day.

One other point. This movie is a work of fiction and so if it is loose with certain historical facts, so what? This movie is not a documentary. Rather, it is a fictional historical drama that revolves around a controversial and even shocking plot. Whether Shakespeare is the actual author of the works attributed to him is not the point. That is a matter for debate. What is the point is whether the movie works as a movie. The story is complex, yet the movie manages to engage the audience through strong acting and by presenting a story crammed with political intrigue. Who can say for certain what was going on in England 500 years ago? It is all a matter for speculation, based upon the available historical material, all of which is subject to interpretation. The idea of English writers bickering and fighting over the authorship of plays may seem trite and far fetched, but the conflict makes for good drama, even if it is pure fiction.

Words can be more powerful than swords

[KineticSeoul · 7/10 · 28 January 2012]

The trailer to this movie interested me but it really beat my expectation. I thought it would be sort of interesting but overall dumb and super far-fetched movie. Now I can see how some people might dislike this movie, especially for those that are fans of Shakespeare. Also the movie doesn't really make you think but instead goes in a black and white direction. Where Shakespeare is a charlatan and a fraud, while being a obnoxious drunkard and a despicable person at that. Also this movie might irritate some viewers who judges movies by how true it is historically. Although history is written by ink and usually by the victors. But what this movie is, is a intriguing movie that grabbed my attention most of the way through although it had some slow moments. And can get a bit convoluted the way it goes from before and after parts, but you catch on after a while. Since there are movies about Shakespeare, it would have been more interesting if it had more of the back story of Earl of Oxford and his life. And also some parts seemed a bit far-fetched. The cast was pretty good and the acting for the most part is believable. Especially Rhys Ifans who played Earl of Oxford, the way he presented himself was charismatic and you could tell the character is intelligent by the way he expressed himself. Vanessa Redgrave was also great as Queen Elizabeth I. What was intriguing was how plays are in a way sort of like movies and this movie was about how plays moved people in immense ways. Overall this movie was a good blend of drama, romance and conspiracy.

7.4/10

Was Shakespeare a Fraud?

[moviewizguy · 7/10 · 28 September 2011]

Set in the political snake-pit of Elizabethan England, Anonymous speculates on an issue that has for centuries intrigued academics and brilliant minds such as Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, and Sigmund Freud, namely: who actually created the body of work credited to William Shakespeare? Experts have debated, books have been written, and scholars have devoted their lives to protecting or debunking theories surrounding the authorship of the most renowned works in English literature. Anonymous poses one possible answer, focusing on a time when scandalous political intrigue, illicit romances in the Royal Court, and the schemes of greedy nobles lusting for the power of the throne were brought to light in the most unlikely of places: the London stage. -- (C) Sony Pictures

As an average movie-goer, I had no idea that Shakespeare's authorship was ever questioned. I didn't know there were theories that existed that other people might have been the true author of the plays, one of which the film focuses on is Oxford. But as far as what ANONYMOUS achieves, it certainly opened my mind as an individual that there is a possibility that another person might have been the true writer of the plays. I mean, why not? It makes the whole thing pertaining to Shakespeare's plays much more interesting. At the most basic level, ANONYMOUS does one thing right: It's damn interesting and entertaining.

Even as a person who never liked Shakespeare's plays (especially the dreaded ROMEO AND JULIET), the film manages to be involving. I was compelled throughout the film, and what makes it work are the actors. Most of them are on the top of their game, including Rhys Ifans who is unrecognizable as Oxford compared to his role in HARRY POTTER 7 PT.1. Even his stares are intense. Rafe Spall as William Shakespeare seems to have a field day with his role, portraying him as an attention-seeking, moneygrubbing actor. I'd also like to point out that Sebastian Armesto, playing Ben Jonson, seems to have an unexpected greater amount of sreentime than anyone else in the film, and he does well in his role as the aspiring writer who plays as a messenger between Oxford and Shakespeare.

Another interesting thing to point out is that the film really doesn't focus on the whole authorship debate a lot. We see that Oxford is the writer giving the scripts to Ben, but other than that, the film pretty much brushes it off to the side and, instead, focuses more on the relationship between Oxford and Queen Elizabeth I as well as the Essex Rebellion. As you can tell, the cast is pretty huge, and I have to admit the first 20 minutes of the film is pretty confusing. We're introduced to a world with many characters and time periods jumping all over the place, but it gets easier to grasp once you get to know the characters.

Overall, ANONYMOUS is an interesting and entertaining film that will get people talking about who the real author of the plays are. The least anyone would get out of it is two hours of a fun "what if?" scenario. The performances by the cast is what really makes the film, though. If it wasn't for the cast, the film wouldn't have worked. Additionally, haters of director Roland Emmerich might find themselves pleased that ANONYMOUS is a character-driven film that doesn't rely on things being destroyed every five minutes. I'd like to see him make more films like this.

Inventive, Compelling, Emmerich's Masterpiece

[Legendary_Badass · 9/10 · 26 October 2011]

The Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans) is a talented playwright whose position forces him to publicly abandon his endeavors. He seeks to sign over his plays and sonnets to Ben Johnson (Sebastian Armesto), but that's easier said than done. When William Shakespeare takes credit (Rafe Spall), that's the least of concerns as the words of Edward affect the political climate.

Rhys Ifans is an unrecognizable powerhouse, and though the rest of the cast fairs well, he shines. As does director Roland Emmerich, who uses every trick at his disposal to make a highly sophisticated drama littered with elaborate costumes and set decoration to be admired.

The theatre experience is very well represented in Anonymous, with the narrator barely making the curtain. Believe it or not but this does actually happen and there are actors who specialize in. The workings of the theatre coincide with the events described and eventually merge. In the time of Edward, the Globe is shown with spectacular accuracy and the familiar faces of the troupe appear across plays.

The future of England is put at stake as the insight into Edward's inspiration is penned on a relationship with Queen Elizabeth (Vanessa Redgrave and in younger form Joely Richardson). These secrets showcase the power of words to win over love and country.

Is it cheating to inject stolen verse into a screenplay? To some extent yes. We're talking about a movie that lifts words, then says they came from a thief. A bit of a paradox if anything. Similarly, it would be silly for J.J. Abrams to direct a movie that's filled with scenes from every Steven Spielberg film, yet that happened with Super 8.

If Anonymous has a fault, it would be in jerking around the audience. The movie starts with an inventive use of a framing device, and quite appropriately in a theatre. We go back and Ben Johnson is jailed, only for us to go back 5 years to see him getting jailed. Then we go back another 40 and when we next see Johnson he's being set free. So… in which time is he released? Thankfully Anonymous is long enough to allow an audience to gain bearings.

Anonymous is Emmerich's masterpiece, a radical far from his usual environmental apocalypse works. There could be a stigma surrounding the subject, which will be viewed as blasphemy by many. I'd like to reassure you that most popular cinema is an act of fiction. Shakespeare isn't available to rebut, and most moviegoers are not concerned with historical accuracy so long as the story is compelling and filled with drama, which Anonymous delivers.

Complicated questionable but compelling history

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 4 June 2014]

'Anonymous' is a modern play on Broadway where a different version of Shakespeare's real life is presented. After a prologue, it flashbacks to Robert Cecil, the Earl of Salisbury with his men chasing after Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) with a collection of manuscripts. He hides them under the Rose and his pursuers burn down the theater. Then it flashes 5 years earlier, Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) is a drunken actor. It flashes 40 year earlier still, Edward De Vere, the Earl of Oxford (Jamie Campbell Bower/Rhys Ifans) is the real author of Shakespeare's works. It is a film about political intrigue in the English court during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (Joely Richardson/Vanessa Redgrave).

There are a lot of questionable and complicated history. I almost feel a real need to be more familiar with the British history both royal and literary. There is something wrong with this version of history but I'm not a good enough scholar to pinpoint it. The start of the movie jumps around in time and it's easy to get lost. This is definitely an unique interpretation of history from writer John Orloff. Roland Emmerich's direction really needs to simplify the movie although the complicated story adds to the atmosphere. In some way, all the name dropping is addictive and fascinating. The acting is top notch. Emmerich films it with so much murky realism. It's a very tough call. There is enough great performances and the story is so audacious that I must recommend this.

Possibly the Greatest Literary Deception of All Time Gets Suberp Cinematic Treatment--Superior to "Shakespear In Love"

[classicalsteve · 10/10 · 19 November 2011]

About 300 years after the publication of the first collected works of Shakespeare, the so-called First Folio (1623), a schoolmaster named J. Thomas Looney (pronounced "loanee") facilitated his students in readings of the Shakespeare plays, particularly "the Merchant of Venice". Over the years while watching the plays, hearing their rhetoric, and absorbing this remarkable voice whose Elizabethan presence is still revered and studied today, Looney became convinced the man from Stratford who is attributed to having written the plays (the Orthodox View), was not the true author. He came to believe the name "William Shakespeare" which appeared on two published poems, the later quartos and the First Folio was in reality a pseudonym for someone else, possibly a nobleman. Previously, those who questioned the Orthodox View, sometimes called Anti-Stratfordians, had proposed others of the Elizebethan Age, such as Sir Francis Bacon and Christopher Marlowe, but Looney was convinced the true author was someone never before put forth since Shakespearian scholarship began in the 18th century. Shakespeare has and still does remain shrouded in mystery.

Because Shakespeare biographical detail has been sketchy at best, Looney developed a profile similar to those used by detectives to paint a picture of his candidate, based on elements in the plays. He determined the writer was a nobleman, a Falconer, possibly sympathetic to the Lancastrian side of the Wars of the Roses, and someone who loved Italy and Italian culture. And, most important of all, that he was a poet who possibly had written poems and/or plays under his own name before going under the name of William Shakespeare. After finding a number of primary sources at the British Library, he came up with his findings. Looney proposed a somewhat forgotten nobleman named Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, as being the true identity of the poet/playwright William Shakespeare in a book called simply "Shakespeare Identified".

"Anonymous" is a film based on Looney's original notion that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, penned the plays which would become the greatest literary canon of the English language. The events surrounding the plays, their performances, Oxford's conscious willingness to stay behind the scenes, and the attribution of the plays to the man from Stratford, a businessman who had little or no experience in theatre, are all dramatized in a period film which takes you back to the world of the Elizabethan Stage. One of the best aspects of "Anonymous" is how it relates the plays to political rhetoric of the period. In recent years, Shakespearian scholars have proposed that many figures of the Elizabethan Court were satirized in the plays, such as William Cecil and his son Robert Cecil. The links between the plays and contemporary politics are brought to the fore much more directly than in "Shakespeare in Love".

Character actor Rhys Ifans offers an Oscar-caliber performance as the man who some believe was the real Shakespeare. Ifans finds that delicate balance between the remarkable artist and the troubled nobleman who could not reconcile the two worlds of his life. If Shakespeare was in fact a nobleman who went under a pseudonym, many of the events portrayed in "Anonymous" are plausible. Unlike today, playwrights and poets lived on the periphery of society, and a nobleman of the rank of Oxford writing plays containing charged political rhetoric would have been scandalous, hence the Shakespeare-Oxford theory.

The hero of the movie is actually his colleague Ben Johnson, the Elizabethan playwright who has always dwelt under the shadow of Shakespeare, especially in modern times. Johnson would have been the greatest playwright of his age if Shakespeare had not been writing. In this story, he becomes the guardian of the Shakespeare plays, and supposedly the man who saves the canon for posterity. Johnson in fact wrote the preface to the First Folio of 1623. If there had been a cover-up of Shakespeare's true identity, Johnson would have known.

While the film bases many of its embellishments on facts known about Edward de Vere, the film does take a few rather implausible historical licenses, not unlike Amadeus which appeared about 25 years ago. Edward de Vere may have flirted with Queen Elizabeth when he was younger, but whether they bore a child does seem quite fantastic. Later in the film, an extraordinary truth about Oxford's own heritage is revealed. However, films have to tell a story, and some licenses are made in order the story remain interesting and compelling. Shakespeare in many of his plays bent history to fulfill his dramatic goals and theatrical visions.

Many Shakespeare enthusiasts not only dismiss the Oxfordian argument but do not approve of the subject altogether. Some Stratfordians' view is that there is no "authorship question" and that any attempt to discredit the man from Stratford does a disservice to Shakespare. I think "Anonymous" is not so much about changing minds but about bringing the question out into the open. Regardless on which side of the fence you may be, there are a lot of questions concerning the life of Shakespeare. Answers to mundane questions, such as primary sources concerning his composing, are strangely absent. No one seems to have mentioned Stratford being any kind of a poet, playwright or actor in Stratford. However, as shown in the film, primary source evidence survives which speaks of Edward de Vere as an adolescent putting on a short play for the young Queen Elizabeth.

So the film brings us back to the fundamental question: did Oxford write the Shakespeare Canon or was it the man from Stratford? Primary source evidence is sparse, and documents which could have shed light on this problem may have perished in the Great Fire of London in 1666. In short, we may never know. But Oxford's star is on the rise, and in years to come, this may be the first film to acknowledge there is indeed a question. Whether it has been answered is up to each viewer.

An impressive mise-en-scene, dark history, a good watch

[samabc-31952 · 7/10 · 4 March 2022]

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet." - Romeo Juliet He wrote 37 plays and more than 150 sonnets. He introduced some 3000 words to the English language. But was he an illiterate buffoon? His parents were illiterate and he was likely to have received only primary education. His own wife and daughters were supposedly illiterate. For many years since early 19th century, there has been an unsettling question still ensues a debate among many scholars on the authorship of the work published under his name. Who is the real author of Hamlet, Romeo Juliet and many more of those plays that redefined the English literature during Tudor period. Although the work was published by Ben Johnson, but was it really the work of Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford? DeVere was a playwright and a poet of the Tudor times. Also, there were many similarities existed between the characters for example Hamlet and Richard III plays and the people DeVere was close to and the events happened in his life and that are described in the plays. There are few others whom anti-Stratfordians believe to be a real writer as well such as Francis Bacon and Christopher Marlowe. The anti-Stratfordians include famous people like Mark Twain, Sigmund Freud, Helen Keller, Charlie Chaplin, Orson Wells, Malcom X, and more. Did you know Shakespeare was a grain merchant in his later years who was delinquent in paying taxes !!!!

This movie is all about story and script writing. It steers through the complicated corrupt Tudor history, entwines them in a way that is more of a mystery than investigative story. But Intriguing plot, stunningly created Tudor London, breathtaking shots.. an impressive mise-en-scene, superb costumes, convincing performances. A good watch.

I Was Shocked That I Was So Bored

[Richard-Nathan · 1/10 · 29 October 2011]

As a firm believer that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays attributed to him, I thought that "Anonymous" would make my blood boil with its myriad historical inaccuracies and its nonsensical conspiracy theories. Instead, it nearly put me to sleep. None of the characters aroused any interest or sympathy. None of the characters had any life, so how could they interest me? None of the characters had a character arc, meaning that no one significantly changes or grew during the film. (Well, that's not completely true. The young de Vere played by Jamie Campbell Bower seemed to be an immature horn dog, while the older de Vere played by Rhys Ifans seems to have no interest in sex at all, but that wasn't character growth - that was an unlikeable character mysteriously becoming a very different unlikeable character with no explanation for the change.) As Edward de Vere, Rhys Ifans attempted to show his poetic soul by looking constipated. He didn't show a shred of humor, which is decidedly odd for a man who supposedly (if he was the real author, as the Oxfordians would have it) wrote more comedies than tragedies. His character claims that art must be political or else it is merely decorative, but he never expressed any political beliefs in the film. He had a personal grudge against the Cecil family, but there is a difference between the personal and the political. (By the way, I find the statement that art must be political or else it is merely decorative to be the most offensive thing in the entire film.)

According to the film, Edward's consummate goal was to install Essex on the throne rather than James. But why did he care? Was it some sort of prejudice against the Scottish? Was it out of some sort of affection for Elizabeth? He lusted for her as a youth, but we never see him show any affection for her as a woman, rather than as sex object (when they were young). (And if he had felt any deep affection for Elizabeth, one would have to question why he would care for such an empty-headed libertine.) Did de Vere actually think Essex's political policies were superior to James's political policies? If so, why didn't the film ever differentiate between their policies? Does this mean that Oxford would have thought the screenplay of "Anonymous" was merely decorative?

As played by Ifans, de Vere didn't seem to have a passion for anything, or any joy in living. He didn't even enjoy writing – he wrote to keep his "voices" from troubling him. (At the very end of the film, he shows some love for his son, but by that point it was too late for me to care about this cold fish.)

Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised that I was bored. I have long thought that it would be difficult to make a film with Oxford as the hero of an "Oxfordian" movie, because you would either have to portray him as a prig who was ashamed of writing "Hamlet," or as someone who would like to have taken credit, but was too big a wimp to say anything. This film manages to portray Oxford (at least when he is Ifans) as both a wimp and a prig.

The film did not bother me primarily for the way it treated William Shakespeare. It bothered me primarily because it was so damned boring.

Even if you accept the premises of the film, it doesn't make sense on its own terms. Queen Elizabeth is not presented as a Puritan (quite the opposite) and she clearly enjoys plays. Why, at the very end of the film, does she suddenly insist that de Vere's name never be on the plays? That comes completely out of left field. And Robert Cecil is supposed to be an ultimate political games-player and spy master. Why doesn't he know that the man he installs as King likes plays? Why did de Vere first learn about the power of plays to move people when he was a mature man (played by Ifans) who attended a public performance of a play by Ben Jonson? According to the film, de Vere had already written "Romeo & Juliet" and the "Henry IV" plays and had them performed at court - wouldn't he have already known about the power of plays to move people???

The second most offensive thing in the film (i.e., after the statement that art must be political or it is merely decorative) was changing the line "that can sing both high and low" to "that can kiss both high and low" - turning it into a cheap oral sex joke.

One of the best films of the year

[howard.schumann · 10/10 · 12 September 2011]

"I, once gone, to all the world must die." – William Shakespeare, Sonnet #81

Actor George Dillon has said, "The purpose of drama is to challenge people and to make people see things slightly differently." The challenge is laid down in stunning fashion by German director Roland Emmerich in his latest work, Anonymous, one of the best films of the year. Focusing on two of the most important events of the Elizabethan age: the Essex Rebellion of 1601 and the succession to the throne of Queen Elizabeth I, the film supports the premise that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, a prominent aristocrat and court insider, was the real author of the works attributed to William Shakespeare, plays and poems of romance, tragic political intrigue, and comedy that contain such a compelling beauty and searing intensity that, after 400 years, still reach directly into our hearts and remain there forever.

Described as a "political thriller", Anonymous creates an atmosphere of foreboding and intrigue that, like many films of the genre, begins with a jumble of names, images, and flashbacks that challenge us to sort it all out. We are not certain of anything, but Emmerich invites us, in the words of Diane Ackerman "to groom our curiosity like a high-spirited thoroughbred, climb aboard, and gallop over the thick, sunstruck hills." Steering us through the maze of Tudor history, the film makes credible the startling events of the time, providing an authentic recreation of London in the 16th century with its crowded theaters and raucous audience, cluttered streets, and court royalty decked out in fine jewels.

Though some may point out historical inaccuracies in the film, Emmerich, citing Shakespeare in Love as an example, says that the film contains an "emotional truth" rather than a literal one because "the drama is the primary concern." He need not have had concern on that aspect. Through Emmerich's direction, the writing of John Orloff, the cinematography of Anna Foerster, and the superlative performance of an all British cast including Oscar-worthy performances by Vanessa Redgrave as Queen Elizabeth I and Rhys Ifans as Oxford, Anonymous succeeds both as an authentic drama and a plausible explanation for many of the problems surrounding the authorship question. While the film may lack a certain depth of characterization, it more than makes up for it with style, spectacle, and an involving story.

To some, the film may be skating on narrative thin ice, Emmerich, however, told an interviewer that "if we provoke, let's provoke all the way," and provoke he does. According to Anonymous, de Vere, in addition to being Shakespeare, was also the illegitimate son of the Queen and, in 1573, the father of a son with Elizabeth, Henry Wriothesley, the 3rd Earl of Southampton (Xavier Samuel). Emmerich handles the subject of incest with great taste, with neither the "Virgin Queen" nor Oxford knowing the truth until close to the end of their lives. After a brief prologue by actor Sir Derek Jacobi, the film begins with the arrest of playwright Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armento) by faceless men in knight's armor in the middle of a theatrical performance.

The author of the play is a well-known writer who, though he is soon released, is taken to the Tower and accused of sedition and slandering the State by the mere act of authoring a play, the mark of a totalitarian society reflecting a growing disdain for the arts. The film then flashes back five years, then forty years, as we become acquainted with the young Earl of Oxford (Jamie Campbell Bower), taught by highly educated tutors with access to a vast library in the home of William Cecil (David Thewlis), where he was brought up as a ward of the court after his father's death. We also witness his marriage to a teenage Anne Cecil (Amy Kwolek), daughter of William, a marriage that never produced any lasting satisfaction for either party.

As we return to present time, Oxford is forced to hide his identity because of the biting satire of his plays that lampoon some of the more prominent members of the court, and also as a result of a political arrangement that becomes clearer later in the film. His initial choice to front for him is the same Ben Jonson but Jonson refuses, passing the mantle to Will Shakespeare (Rafe Spall), an actor for the Lord Chamberlain's Men who seizes the opportunity. In a superbly comic performance, Spall portrays Will as an illiterate money-grubber who can barely speak coherently but is willing to sell his name to Oxford at a premium cost. The heart of the plot, however, focuses on the attempt to seize power from Cecil's son Robert, an episode that is known to history as The Essex Rebellion of 1601.

This insurrection, led by Robert Devereaux, the Second Earl of Essex (Sam Reid) results in his beheading and the imprisonment of Southampton who is sent to the Tower awaiting certain death. Oxford's attempt to persuade Elizabeth to save their son results in a political deal that makes us privy to why Oxford was never able to reveal his authorship of the Shakespeare canon. While some critics may proclaim the movie a moment of singularity that indicates the end of the world as we know it (even before 2012), Anonymous may have the opposite effect, opening the subject to a wider audience who may be able to view Shakespeare and his times from a totally new perspective.

In Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land," Jubal said we're prisoners of our early indoctrinations, "for it is hard, very nearly impossible, to shake off one's earliest training." If my intuition is correct, the prison gates will soon be swinging wide open, and the shaking will begin in earnest. As Victor Hugo said, "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come."

Simplistic

[sergepesic · 6/10 · 23 September 2013]

In order to enjoy this pseudo-historical thriller, one has to suspend natural desire for logic and order. For a start this is not history. The mystery of Shakespeare, the greatest writer in English language, will probably stay mystery. So, this simplistic movie,doesn't give any answers, nor pose any valid questions, it just tries to dazzle with bright colors. And it makes it's questionable claim with the heaviest of feet. The character of Shakespeare is made to be a step up from village idiot, dumb and illiterate. Little more subtlety wouldn't hurt. But this is Hollywood, a land where moneymakers rule over talent. So, simpler the better, says the one that holds the purse strings. It is hard to do art without money, but when money rules,art becomes obsolete.

Anonymous? Abomnible

[colinmatts · 3/10 · 26 January 2012]

I saw this movie last night and was hugely disappointed. Being a Shakespeare fan, I was always going to be a bit sceptical about any movie that supported the theory that the great man did not write his own plays. But if there was any fear that this movie would lend weight to the countless conspiracy theories that have littered history for centuries, then those fears were soon dispelled. True, Shakespeare is made to look a complete idiot. But that says more about the director and writer than it does about the Immortal Bard. If Shakespeare is treated badly, then Ben Jonson is positively lampooned. Watching the movie, I occasionally got the feeling that its producers did not know who Ben Jonson really was. Historical accuracy was not high on the list of priorities for the makers of this movie. They engage in dynastic and historical gymnastics in order to support the pathetically weak plot, mainly, that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, wrote the 37 plays attributed to Shakespeare. By the time the movie finished, I think the Earl of Oxord had turned out to be his own father and Queen Elizabeth i was his mother. This will only count as a spoiler if you have attempted to follow the entwined family trees of the Cecils, Tudors and de Veres through irritating jumps back and forward in time which totally confuse the audience. Having said all this, the movie does boast an outstanding cast and Elizabethan London is excellently recreated with both costumes and sets. Just a pity that they also decided to manufacture the historical events.

an ambitious tale of drama and intrigue (mild spoilers)

[Rick-34 · 14 October 2011]

Roland Emmerich's Anonymous addresses the question of Shakespeare's identity in this tale of Edward de Vere and his actions in the court of Queen Elizabeth. The film starts a prologue by the eminent Shakespearean actor Derek Jacobi, and then leads us into a scene with Ben Johnson running about London, fleeing from the knights of Robert Cecil while carrying the Complete Works. From there we flash back five years to the first time Johnson was arrested for authoring a "seditious" play, while de Vere, Christopher Marlowe and other luminaries of the London dramatic scene watched. From there, a second flashback of another 40 years sends us to watch de Vere's youth and his first encounters with the Cecils and with Queen Elizabeth.

Throughout the film we follow three periods of time: de Vere's youth and his growing love for the Queen; the peak of the Shakespearean arc in London, when de Vere was feeding plays to Shakespeare and involving himself in intrigues of London surrounding the question of Elizabeth's heir; and to a much lesser extent, the actions of Johnson and Cecil in the aftermath of the deaths of Elizabeth and de Vere, and the coronation of King James I. Some have complained that the various swings from one time line to another are confusing, but I found it easy to differentiate between young Edward and young Elizabeth and their much older counterparts.

The main body of the film centers around the contest between de Vere's actions to place the Earl of Essex in the line of succession, and the competing interests of the Cecils (first William, then Robert) to steer the throne to King James of Scotland. Thankfully for the viewer, it is easy to differentiate between the two camps, as Essex and his entourage are all fair-haired, while James and the Cecils are dark-haired.

There will be controversy about this film due to the great liberties it takes with historical facts. John Orloff's screenplay ranges from facts well established in the historical record to some points that are debated by experts with varying points of view and interpretations, to some fictions that are introduced and can only be viewed as flatly false. Who wrote the plays and poems we attribute to Shakespeare? This is at least a topic for debate. Who killed Christopher Marlowe? This film provides an extremely unlikely answer to this question. Was Elizabeth truly a "Virgin Queen"? A modern viewer might think this to be unlikely (especially considering who her father was) but the number and variety of her children suggested by the film seems extremely unlikely. And then there are facts not in dispute at all that are contradicted by the film (such as the fact that Edward de Vere survived his first wife Anne Cecil de Vere and indeed remarried).

It is important, then, to understand that this film is a work of fiction and is not presenting what it believes to be the literal truth regarding the authorship of Shakespeare's plays. With that in mind, it comes out well in comparison to the feather-light Shakespeare in Love. The production values of the film are tremendous. The producers have gone to great efforts to replicate Elizabethan London, with its architecture and much and the wooden planks used in place of modern sidewalks. The acting is tremendous, especially Rhys Ifans as de Vere and Vanessa Redgrave as Elizabeth.

I recommend this film highly, not as a serious treatment of the authorship question, but as an entertaining piece of historical fiction. It might have been interesting to see a film that was a more serious treatment of the Oxfordian point-of-view, but such a film might well have been fairly boring in comparison.

Visually impressive! Story-wise, not so much.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 6/10 · 19 February 2012]

Can't really say I enjoyed watching this movie. Visually it's a great movie to look at but other than that, this movie has far too little else to offer.

Most people are hating on this movie because it's filled with historical inaccuracies and basically non of it is based on any facts, even though the movie presents itself as if its telling a true and historical story, concerning Shakespeare and his well known stage-plays. This however was not the problem I had with its story. Actually I don't see anything wrong with it. I mean, if it takes an entertaining but yet fictional story to get more people interested in Shakespeare, than so be it and I don't have a problem with this at all. But thing I do have a problem with is that the story of this movie just isn't much good really.

It's a movie about Shakespeare but let me tell you that there is very little Shakespeare about the script itself, though it still is being written as a serious attempt, at a Shakespeareing like tragedy, complete with incest, conspiracies and murder. But it really is a story that just never takes off and fails to ever become a true involving or even just interesting one. To put it boldly; I just couldn't care less about the story or anyone in it!

But no, it still most definitely was not a movie that I hated watching. It still has some qualities to it, which mostly comes from its visuals and atmosphere. I thought that the movie did a fantastic job at recreating its time period that it is supposed to be set in, with some great looking sets and costumes and atmospheric camera-work. In that regard this movie is still a real surprise, since it's coming from director Roland Emmerich, who normally really isn't being subtle with any of his movies and enjoys destroying the world, in really most of his movies.

It really is still a movie with some qualities to it and I'm sure it also got made with all of the right intentions. It just really wasn't a movie I ever could enjoy or was grabbed by.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

I enjoyed this (and I didn't mean to)

[bowmanblue · 7/10 · 19 January 2015]

I don't know why I ever watched this. It was only because it was a new film that I bothered to put it in the DVD player. Therefore I had absolutely no expectations from it.

At first I was confused. Everyone in the past apparently looked the same, i.e. beards and ruffs and Baldrick lookalikes for servants. However, I stuck with it. And I'm glad I did.

I'm not big on history, so I won't (or can't) comment on its historical accuracy, but it was a damn enjoyable romp nonetheless.

It makes the claim that Shakespeare didn't write is plays, but, instead, there was a larger conspiracy at work and someone else did. Now, I don't know whether this was really true or not, but, it's fun to watch.

Once you establish which beard is which and which beard is actually a younger incarnation of a beard in the future (as there are a lot of flashbacks showing what the beards were doing when they were younger), you can actually follow the conspiracy and see which beard comes out on top. As it's filled with plenty of beheading, back-stabbing and political treachery, it's actually more entertaining than you might think.

A happy filmic surprise.

Wow! You've got to see this. Whether true or not, it's a fascinating film.

[Melanie-Johnston · 10/10 · 19 November 2011]

Everyone in our theater was so mesmerized by this many-layered plot that no one even got up to go the bathroom. My head was spinning a bit, trying to keep up with who was related to whom, but I loved every minute of it.

And I know the cast is highly pedigreed because I recognized some of the actors in the plays from a live performance of Shakespeare the Old Globe Theater troupe gave at UCLA a few years ago while the Old Globe was being renovated. Annette Bening was in the audience that night, so it was a pretty cool evening all around.

After the movie I was at a restaurant next to the theater and I heard a woman say, "I just saw that Shakespeare movie and I'm in a daze."

Go see it and you will be, too. I think I need to see it a few more times to pick up all the fascinating details.

Historical fiction account of authorship controversy makes for good film; reconstruction of early 17th century London done w/ care

[chaz-28 · 7/10 · 31 October 2011]

Audiences may sometimes divide themselves when it comes to historical fiction. There is the faction who appreciates a fictional story assigned to a true historical figure to create an engrossing book or movie. Conversely, there arises a vocal minority who deride the story as an affront to what actually happened in history; they worry the uninformed masses will be swayed by the fiction and falsely believe the fiction to be true. Such is the case with Anonymous.

In this story, which furthers the case of a scholarly minority who do not believe William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) authored all of those plays, Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans), was the true genius behind the words. As an Earl, his station was superior to writing and associating with the rabble in a place such as the Globe Theatre. However, his gift required an outlet. He heard the voices of his characters and felt the physical need to commit those voices to paper.

Left at this level, the film would have been more scholarly and actually about the canon itself, but director Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, 2012) appears to have desired a more suspenseful thriller. In this era, Queen Elizabeth 1 (Vanessa Redgrave) is at the end of her Golden Age and the issue of royal succession is on the English court's mind. Most expect the title to fall to James I of Scotland including the Queen's most trusted adviser Edward Cecil (David Thewlis). There are those though who would like the crown to stay closer to home, one such person is Edward de Vere.

Edward recognizes the power of words. When words successfully capture an enraptured audience, they can move them to weep, poke them with laughter, or even stoke their anger and morph that audience from mere observers into a mob. To ensure he remains as the man behind the curtain, Edward de Vere hires Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) to be his cover. Jonson is already a moderately successful playwright and is loathe to sell out his proud signature on works which are not his own. Mistakenly, he relays the situation to one William Shakespeare.

In Anonymous, Shakespeare is a buffoon. He drinks too much, spends too much time and money with whores, and is even illiterate. Since he is an actor, he can read; however, he is unable to even scribble his own name on parchment. The remainder of the film involves different factions scheming to ensure their man is in line for the throne, the resentment of Ben Jonson over Shakespeare's fraudulent fame, and mostly stuffed into the background are the plays themselves.

Sections of the most famous scenes of Henry V, Romeo & Juliet, Richard III, and Macbeth are briefly staged in the theatre, but they are not the focus. The faces of a stunned crowd, the roving eyes of Ben Jonson and Edward de Vere are in close-up, but the words are overshadowed. The suggestion that a glove-maker's son with a grade school education from an out of the way village named Stratford-upon-Avon did not author all of those plays is intriguing. A figure such as the Earl of Oxford with his first rate classical education and firsthand knowledge of the world outside England makes for a plausible argument against Shakespeare. However, Anonymous truly is historical fiction.

Just as Shakespeare doubters gleefully point out the striking lack of evidence missing from his authorship such as original editions, lack of fame in his lifetime, no mention of the plays in his will, etc… there is also scant evidence Edward de Vere authored them either. Furthermore, the political intrigue in Anonymous is also severely stretched in the credibility department. I will not belabor the details, but if you are already aware of who becomes king after Elizabeth, the tone will be a bit less suspenseful for you than those of you who do not know about the succession.

I recommend Anonymous mainly due to its wonderful production value. The streets are covered in garbage and mud; one must skillfully walk on strategically placed boards placed on top of the mess to avoid sinking into its depth. The reconstruction of the Globe Theatre is done with care and accuracy. Furthermore, in a time when films are routinely shoveled out for the masses to blindly consume based on the bottom line and more frequently their ignorance, Anonymous at least concerns the worlds' greatest ever author. Whoever wrote those lines, be it Shakespeare or Edward de Vere, at least somebody did.

Roland Emmerich has got himself a masterpiece

[DarkVulcan29 · 10/10 · 14 November 2011]

What if Shakespeare was a fraud, that is a theory that this movie dares to question. It is brilliantly well told. And this what if thing, will probably make us think that what if any of this true.

Earl of Oxford(Rhys Ifans) has to focus on politics, but his creativity makes him be an artist of a writer. But because he is in politics it is forbidden, so he lets someone else take the credit, and that someone is William Shakespeare. And the unfortunate chain of events that will follow.

Rhys Ifans is Oscar worthy, his performance is beyond perfection as a tortured man. Vanessa Redgrave is good as Queen Elizabeth, so was her daughter Joely Richardson as young Queen Elizabeth in flash back scenes. The setting was also good, all the other supporting cast where good also. Roland Emmerichs direction is perfect, I hope he won't be missed by the Oscars.

A delicious tale of deceit, lust, betrayal and violence.

[Troy_Campbell · 7/10 · 5 November 2011]

Better known for end-of-the-world popcorn flicks 2012, The Day After Tomorrow, Godzilla and Independence Day, Roland Emmerich proves there's more strings to his bow with this highly competent period political thriller. If you can go along with the main conceit – that Shakespeare was an illiterate, drunken buffoon who was putting his name to the Earl of Oxford's plays – then Anonymous presents a delicious tale of deceit, lust, betrayal and violence. The quasi-Gothic setting, gloriously photographed by DP Anna Foerster, compliments the mostly on-song cast, featuring Rhys Ifans as the conflicted Earl of Oxford, Vanessa Redgrave as the tinderbox Queen Elizabeth I and David Thewlis as the malevolent William Cecil. Rafe Spall doesn't impress as much as the obnoxious Shakespeare, but Aussie boy Xavier Samuel takes another step closer to stardom with his solid work as the Earl of Southampton. An intriguing history-amending yarn that sees 130 minutes fly by.

Overcooked

[jmar1978 · 3/10 · 10 November 2011]

I'm well familiar with the many arguments that someone other than the Stratford Actor, William Shakespeare, wrote the plays attributed to him and am somewhat agnostic about the whole matter. There are good reasons to believe someone else did them, although I think there are also good reasons to believe that Shakespeare was, for the most part, Shakespeare (allowing for collaboration with others in his company).

But this film isn't a good representation of the argument that Edward de Vere was the author of the plays we attribute to Shakespeare. I lost count of the historical inaccuracies after the first 20 minutes or so (Hamlet before Richard III? Richard III, not II, at Essex's revolt? And the way Marlowe died? Just to mention some obvious nonsense).

But I really was less bothered by that than I was by the general unbelievability of this film's characters. Just about everyone in this film over-emotes, and their motives are just implausible. I'll buy historical fiction (which this film really is), but only if the characters and events are believable and compelling. This film fails that test.

I doubt this film will be long for the theaters. It's terribly overcooked.

A surprisingly good political thriller that even non-Shakespeare fans like me will enjoy. I really liked this movie. I say B+

[cosmo_tiger · 8/10 · 20 January 2012]

"The most performed playwright of all time, the author of 37 plays, 154 sonnets & several narrative poems...and yet not a single manuscript of any kind has ever been found written in Shakespeare's own hand." A movie that explores the theory that Shakespeare didn't write any of the things that he is said to. The theory is that The Earl of Oxford (Ifans) wrote them all as a stab at the new Queen (Redgrave) of England. I have said this before but I am not a Shakespeare fan at all, I just don't get him. There are a few movies of his I like but for the most part I am not a fan. Needless to say before watching this I was not that excited at all. Almost instantly the movie grabbed me and I was hooked. For those like me this is not really about Shakespeare at all, but more of a political thriller about trying to start and control a rebellion against Queen Elizabeth I in the 1600's. Weather this is true or not to me doesn't matter but the idea of writing plays as a way to begin a rebellion is a very interesting theory and makes for a very interesting movie. Overall, (from a non-Shakespeare fan) I really enjoyed this movie and recommend this. I give it a B+.

Now is the winter of our discontent, as the movie Anonymous try to be or not to be, a good movie. In my opinion, it was alright.

[ironhorse_iv · 7/10 · 31 May 2014]

I have to give credit where credit is due, Director Roland Emmerich known for his semi-entertaining disaster flicks, took a risky undertaking, making a political historical drama thriller about William Shakespeare not be the writer of his own's plays. That's take a lot of guts! The movie is set against the backdrop of Elizabethan England during the Essex rebellion against the aging Queen Elizabeth (Vanessa Redgrave) and her crude adviser William Cecil (David Thewlis) and his son, Robert Cecil (Edward Hogg). The film states out the theory that it was in fact Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford, (Rhys Ifans), who penned Shakespeare's plays so that he convince the people of England to overthrow their ruler in favor of the Earl of Essex (Sam Reid) than the Cecil's pick of King James. The movie might not be historically accurate as it should be, the film presents a nearly absent King James as the Cecils' candidate, and Earl of Essex (Sam Reid) as a threat to his succession. In truth, Essex was King James of Scotland's most avid supporter in England during the closing years of Elizabeth's reign. I do find the absent nature of King James kinda annoying. He should had a bigger role since the plot revolve around him. Most of the characters are portray in an unlikeable role, even Edward De Vere was a bit of a jerk and cowardly. The idea that he has to hide under anonymous identify for the safety reasons is outrageous not hero like and not true to his real life counterpart. The worst had to be William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall). I really hated how negative, he was portray in the film. Even if he didn't write the plays in a film, he was still a brilliant actor and writer not a clueless selfish murderer. Yes, Shakespeare is suggested as the murderer of Christopher Marlowe (Trystan Gravelle) in this movie, despite in real life, Marlowe died in 1593 in a different neighborhood, than Shakespeare was staying. The movie really re-date a lot of plays and events to fit the 1601 Essex Rebellion, but the film fails to mention that he wrote a lot of plays that had no hints that it could relate to being against the current government at the time. The movie portray William Shakespeare/Edward De Vere as an innovator as people are surprise that he wrote a whole play in blank verse. In truth, blank verses been around since 1516, way before Shakespeare was born. Not only do the movie question William Shakespeare status as a writer, but also in the fact that the Virgin Queen, might not be a virgin, after all. That was pretty daring. Despite the historic inaccuracies, the movie had a lot of twist and turns that could be viewpoint as realistic and really were shocking! None of these controversial theories sound too outrageous when you think about it, but let it be known that the movie plot is indeed fiction, unless told over-wise by historians. The film was indeed entertaining well made. I really got into the time period with the set, costume, and visual/special effect design. The script was smarten more-well written than a lot of Roland Emmerich's previous films. Love how Shakespeare's plays themes are mixed with this script. Mad props to screenwriter John Orloff for that. Still, there were some faults to the script, such as the structure of the movie narrative, making it look like its being portray as a play within a play within a play. It's such a time-jumping format. I also didn't like the fact that the movie was nearly humorless beside William Shakespeare is well-known for his humor. Another is how the movie doesn't understand, symbolism like the Tudor rose, which it isn't a real flower. Still, there were lots of action, sexual tension and great acting to make it watchable. It's sad that a lot of people crap on it, without giving the movie a chance. There was a lot of unneeded heat when this movie came out due to the fact that a lot of one-sided biased William Shakespeare supporters AKA Stratfordians stubbornly couldn't open their eyes to a different viewpoint and the fact that It was Roland Emmerich film. Let's remember, he did make some good movies and made some stinkers before, but this movie is far from a stinker! Still, I'm not going to overlook the faults of the film, and praise it, like cult-like indoctrinate Oxfordians AKA people that believe that somebody else wrote the plays. While it's not that far off, that Shakespeare didn't write his plays due to the facts: that there are few records of Shakespeare's private life besides his taxes return, the layout of education in that time period with royals are must likely to able to travel, and get proper training in literacy in aristocratic sensibility, or familiarity with the royal court. Also that others works from author like Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe and others could mistake for William Shakespeare over the years is possible. People like Sigmund Freud, Mark Twain and Whit Whitman believe somebody else wrote William Shakespeare, but I have found in my own belief, that William Shakespeare indeed work his plays due to other well-documented evidence like title pages, testimony by other contemporary poets and historians, and no evidence links Oxford to Shakespeare's works. The most compelling evidence against the Oxfordian Theory is de Vere's death in 1604, since the generally accepted chronology of Shakespeare's plays places the composition of approximately twelve of the plays after that date. I do think, William Shakespeare did steal some ideas & had influences from other writers from the time. Plus, half of his work are just rehash re-tellings of historical events or earlier manuscripts works from other authors like Edward De Vere. So, there is no real wrong answer to this. Overall: I had look at this film in open approach, and despite my overall belief, found it, worth watching despite its fails.

The 'darker and edgier' Shakespeare?

[Culfy · 3/10 · 29 December 2012]

This film presents itself as Roland Emmerich's move into cinematic maturity, a move away from the special effects laden films of his youth and into a concentration on plot, atmosphere and mature characterisation. Or so he apparently intended, but by the end of the film I was hoping in vain for an alien invasion to destroy London or Godzilla to burn down the globe...anything to raise the mood of gloom and doom that Emmerich apparently thinks is 'proper' film-making. Derek Jacobi (one of the few performers who actually gives any sparkle to his performances) promises at the beginning to tell a 'darker story' and dark the story certainly is; full of tightly framed underlit shots of lots of men in ruffs and beards shouting at each other and generally being underhand. Not one sympathetic character shows themselves; Edward Hogg's Robert Cecil is a grumpy hunchback who, like his father, hates the arts and wants to put King James of Scotland on the throne (which the film, rather ineffectually tries to suggest is a Bad Thing). Rafe Spall's William Shakespeare is a drunken fornicator who kills Christopher Marlowe when he discovers the truth about his non-authorship of the plays. Ben Jonson is a treacherous swine who is given one of the film's unintentionally hilarious lines ('You know he's illiterate. Oh he can read well enough'). Queen Elizabeth is a senile old bat who has spent most of her reign dropping bastards left, right and centre, which his counsellors alternate between covering up and trying to stick them on the throne. And as for Edward De Vere, the 'soul of the age?' Well it's hard to sympathise with a man who, according to the film, killed an unnamed servant and wasted most of his family fortune while ignoring his own family. The part is given to Rhys Ifans who fails entirely to endow it with any sign of life whatsoever. And as for the big question the film poses, 'Who wrote Shakespeare?' The film does such harm to the Oxfordian cause by piling on absurdity on absurdity that one might suspect this to be a stealth satire.