Movies Books Music Food Tv Shows Technology Politics Video Games Parenting Fashion Green Living more >

Lunch » Tags » Movies » Reviews » Anonymous (2011 movie) » User review


A 2011 movie directed by Roland Emmerich.

< read all 5 reviews

The truth about Shakespeare lies elsewhere

  • Nov 1, 2011
I always accepted the idea that Shakespeare wrote his own plays, and considered anything to the contrary to be merely speculation not fact. So, the premise-what if Shakespeare never wrote a word, I found not to be appealing.

Upon reading some good reviews, I decided to see it, and found it to be a high quality production and a wonderful experience. Director Roland Emmerich previously directed 2012, and Independence Day, and writer John Orloff previously wrote some episodes of Band of Brothers, and as you watch this movie you will realise this term BoB originated with Shakespeare.

Anonymous proposes the Earl of Oxford wrote all the plays, and donated them to Ben Johnson, a well known writer of the time for him to take credit. Then an uncouth illiterate actor, named Shakespeare steps in to claim the credit. The peer remained anonymous for reasons of social acceptability.

Another reason he may have remained anonymous which I totally loved was the parallel structure between what happened in the plays, and the real life events of the courtiers and Queen Elizabeth. Cecil, the courtier villain in this movie is a hunchback (historical fact), and brother in law of the Earl of Oxford. Richard 3 in Shakespeare's play is a hunchback, so the play becomes a social satire.

A scene where a man is stabbed through a curtain mirrors a scene in Hamlet, and there. A usurped heir is sent to Ireland, and there is a plot to kill him, similar to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Hamlet.

Emmerich's direction gives Anonymous a much grander scope. We have big set pieces, such as a rebel attack on a bridge leading to the tower of London, rowing a boat in the Thames with the London skyline looming behind, an aerial shot of a huge crowd in the snow, and visual scenes of quite unsanitary London of the time, and he evokes the period very well. For example it rains on the actor in the theater, as he recites his lines. Certain scenes play out in ways we have not scene before, particularly Hamlet's soliloquy where he holds a knife, Richard 3 as caricature, crowd interaction and participation, sweet talking bawdy ladies with Shakespeare's words. I loved this. Visually outstanding, with exquisite and intricate costumes.

I liked the lead actors charisma and presence. He was so in character and looked older for the part that I did not recognise him till the credits. Rhys Ifans starred in Notting Hill, and Pirate Radio. He does a terrific job, perhaps his best work, as does the actor who plays Johnson. There is a particular scene between the two of them at the end that makes me tear up even as I write. Derek Jacobi, begins and ends the movie opening and closing the premise.

Vanessa Redgrave plays the doddering confused queen, and her daughter Joely Richardson plays her younger self, who has a torrid affair with the Earl of Oxford when she was young, producing an illicit. The queen has several torrid affairs which become part of the plot of succession. Shakespeare was played by Rafe Spall, son of Timothy Spall, who you have probably seen in several movies.

If the screenwriter was hoping to persuade me, he certainly made me think. Perhaps he goes too overboard with Shakespeare having a unique form of illiteracy, he can read words and memorise them but he can't write, and yet he is a scheming manipulative lout, a criminal, a drunkard, a successful entrepreneur, and a sociopath. Asked to speak to a crowd he stumbles inarticulately over his words. If Shakespeare was as inarticulate, and uneducated as portrayed, how could he have convinced anyone of his genius when he lacked the most basic skills of expression.

If not Shakespeare, then who?

I did a some online research. Apparently, almost two centuries passed before anyone seriously questioned Shakespeare's authorship. It has been suggested that Sir Francis Bacon wrote these plays, but why would an already famous writer give credit to someone else. DeVere appears to be the current favorite among conspiracy theorists. If DeVere was excluded from the court, as he is in the movie then he would not be in a position to satirise the court, or include such pointed commentary in his plays. DeVere as a child in the movie performs a piece from Midsummer nights dream for the queen. He could hardly have written it as an adult then, could he?  Curiously, at times the movie appears to undermine its own premise.

It has been suggested that Sir Thomas North, North of Shakespeare: The True Story of the Secret Genius Who Wrote the World's Greatest Body of Literature, wrote the materials on which some of Shakespeare's plays were based.

He did translate Plutarch which Shakespeare used as a source in several plays such as Julius Caesar, Troilus and Cressida, Coriolanus, and Anthony and Cleopatra, adapting them for the stage, converting the words from prose to verse. According to this book, Shakespeare purchased North's works, and then adapted them from the page to the stage. In some cases the corresponding passages in Shakespeare are word for word what was written by North. Somehow North did not get credit. Rosalind from As You Like It apparently is Elisa Nord, (north)North's daughter.

Hamlet was adapted from a centuries old story called Amleth, and had several iterations, including Dial of Princes by North. Shakespeare made numerous changes to the original story Amleth, making it way darker according to a book I read Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories.

In the movie Ben Johnson proclaims sincere affection for DeVere's language skills.
In reality, Ben Johnson famously said of Shakespeare: "he would... buy the reversion of old plays,"but then mark not whose 'twas first: and after-times may judge it to be his..."Epigram no.56.

The movie claims no manuscript written by Shakespeare survives. If you don't have evidence that Shakespeare wrote something, does that mean you have evidence someone else wrote it? You cannot infer alternative authorship from a negation, only from evidence.

If you have evidence that these plays were previously written, and performed or were adapted from books, then you can verify that Shakespeare was not the originator, merely wrote a version, and credit the original source. It seems that with some of these plays, they were circulating already, and then Shakespeare wrote a version, or made his own adaptation, which then became the definitive version.

Undoubtedly, this movie will stimulate debate and controversy. The idea that he didn't write a single word goes too far in my opinion, it would be interesting to know for sure what he did and did not write. I do think this is one of the best movies I have seen all year.

Wherever you stand on this, I highly recommend you see it, consider it, and form your own opinion. For me, it's too tabloidy to be taken seriously, the once virgin queen now a nympho, having an illegitimate son with the real Shakespeare, and so on.

Even if like me you do not agree with the premise, you might be surprised to discover you still love the movie.
The truth about Shakespeare lies elsewhere The truth about Shakespeare lies elsewhere The truth about Shakespeare lies elsewhere

What did you think of this review?

Fun to Read
Post a Comment
April 08, 2013
Take a look at Letters by Shakespeare by Alan Stewart- an excellent book.

"Alan Stewart shows how and why Shakespeare put letters on stage in virtually all of his plays. By reconstructing the very different uses to which letters were put in Shakespeare's time, and recapturing what it meant to write, send, receive, read, and archive a letter, it throws new light on some of his most familiar dramas. Early modern letters were not private missives sent through an anonymous postal system, but a vital - sometimes the only - means of maintaining contact and sending news between distant locations. Penning a letter was a serious business in a period when writers made their own pen and ink; letter-writing protocols were strict; letters were dispatched by personal messengers or carriers, often received and read in public - and Shakespeare exploited all these features to dramatic effect. Surveying the vast range of letters in Shakespeare's oeuvre, the book also features sustained new readings of Hamlet, King Lear, Antony and Cleopatra, The Merchant of Venice and Henry IV Part One. "
November 03, 2011
You are not sure about the premise. Maybe you should read The Tragedy of Arthur and you might change you mind. See my posted review on Lunch: http://www.lunch.com/Reviews/d/The_Tragedy_o...ur_A_Novel-1726197.html
November 02, 2011
Thanks for the review! I meant to see this last Sunday, but I wasn't able to. I skimmed though parts of your review to avoid spoilers and I want to be able to have an open mind to it once I review it myself. I was resitant since I am not a fan of the director. Good to know it was successul in making you think, movies like this rely on that.
November 02, 2011
I do try to avoid putting in spoilers, and I don't like to know too much about a movie in advance either. I look forward to your review.
November 01, 2011
I've studied, acted, directed, blah blah blah Shakespeare and there's always been this theory that he never wrote a word of his works. The North theory is popular and so is the theory that Shakespeare stole Christopher Marlowe's works (he was a college educated poet and dramatist during Shakespeare's time and Shakespearean rival). These are widely dispersed as conspiracy theories. In any case, I'm really looking forward to this movie since the only theories I've heard I've never really looked into. I'm glad to hear that it's a great film!
November 02, 2011
I am reading the North book right, and it's pretty convincing. It seems to me he must at least have done some tweaking or changed story elements to make it stageworthy. I had not heard the Marlowe theory before. I think you will love the movie, and particularly with some Shakespeare background you will probably pick up on things I missed.
November 02, 2011
Yeah, I can't wait! I'll have to let you know what I think after I check it out hopefully, sometime this week!
November 02, 2011
That would be great. Thanks.
More Anonymous (2011 movie) reviews
review by . November 07, 2011
posted in Movie Hype
Anonymous received some very mixed reviews. I am not sure why. I thought it was excellent. I love the graphically created London of the time period. The costumes were authentic. And the acting was superb. Vanessa Redgrave was extraordinary in my opinion. Even if you don't buy the theory behind the authorship of Shakespeare's presented in the film, its still a well written thought provoking screenplay.
review by . November 04, 2011
I have to disagree with the luke warm reviews of the movie Anonymous.  I found it to be very well made.  It has an interesting take on the Shakespheare legend.  The acting is top notch, a bit over the top at times, but still great fun to watch.  Vanessa Redgrave chews the scenery in classic fashion.   The special effects recreating Elizabethan London are fantastic.     I enjoyed watching Vanessa and her grand daughter play the same role at different ages.  I …
review by . October 29, 2011
posted in Movie Hype
Star Rating:         With all due respect to the writing and literature professors I depended on to educate me as I earned both a Bachelors and a Masters in English, I feel I must admit that I haven’t read a word written by William Shakespeare, nor have I seen one of his plays. I’ve heard nothing but good things, though. And looking back on his history, I marvel at the fact the he rose from his very humble roots to become what many consider the greatest …
review by . October 20, 2011
posted in Movie Hype
'Anonymous' 'Two Jews On Film' Do Battle Over This Historical Political Thriller (Video)
         Yes...'Anonymous' is a political thriller, but it's one that is set in the past...400 years ago to be precise.   The film, directed by Roland Emmerich and written by John Orloff (took him 15 drafts to get it right) supports the premise that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, (Rhys Ifans)a prominent aristocrat, was the real author of the works attributed to William Shakespeare.        Sounds dull? Believe …
About the reviewer
Larry Power ()
Ranked #282
Member Since: May 29, 2010
Last Login: Sep 10, 2013 07:54 PM UTC
Consider the Source

Use Trust Points to see how much you can rely on this review.

Your ratings:
rate more to improve this
About this movie
© 2015 Lunch.com, LLC All Rights Reserved
Lunch.com - Relevant reviews by real people.
This is you!
Ranked #
Last login
Member since