Anonymous (2011)

Conspiracy theorists, rejoice! A major motion picture seeks to popularize the idea that Shakespeare's plays were not, in fact, written by William Shakespeare, but by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.

Its a really complicated story, a weaving together of lives of the Elizabethan courts. Every time I watch something about the Tudors, I'm fascinated and have to go do some research afterwards. The complex social lives these guys had, its unbelievable. I can't imagine that the members of the Tudor courts didn't have a headache every moment of everyday, just from the struggle of having to deal with all the deceits, intrigues, and propriety that were ascribed to them.





Well, anyway, I've done a bit of reading, so here's your reference point on the story: Previous to this movie, I'd never heard of this particular theory of Shakespeare's true authorship. I guess it wasn't popular while I was in High School or college, I remember Bacon and Marlowe being put forth, but is now the prevailing theory among conspiracy theorists. The theory holds that for whatever reason, Edward, Earl of Oxsford, who was a well-known theater lover, writer, and poet, could not attribute his own name to his body of plays. As such, he used William Shakespeare, who was a well known businessman by the time of his death, as a front for the publication of the plays. The argument is made that Shakespeare, the historical figure, left little to no written evidence behind in his life, no evidence that he was ever literate. Scholars think that he lacked the education needed to write his body of work. Oxsford, on the other hand, was very well educated and literate, and despite references by some of his contemporaries to plays he'd created, has no written body of work to show for it either.

Its a complex web of times, dates, and notes on both sides of the argument, all of which boils down to the idea that Shakespeare, the common man from Stratford, being mentally inadequate to create the works for which he is credited, and so instead they must have come from a man of aristocratic breeding.

A less popular alternate candidate for authorship.

Its worth noting that I'm not a fan of the theory. In some ways, its actually a bit insulting. But, that doesn't stop it from making a good drama.

Of course, one thing is really missing from the alternative authorship theory, and that is motive. Why would Oxsford, who did not hide his love of theater or writing, who is known to have written poems, and to have owned an Elizabethan theater, find need to hide his identity for this particular body of work?

Anonymous seeks to answer that theory with a very complicated and deep love-triangle rooted in the Tudor legacy. The film bounces back and forth across time, between the young Earl's initiation into court, and his time as an adult, mixing dashes of historical evidence here and there... and of course, taking some liberties. We find that the young Earl fell in love with Queen Elizabeth during his time at court, and used his supposed Shakespearean wit to woo her, eventually bedding her. The two of them sired a bastard, who's identity is kept secret from the world, even the whelp's parents. The turmoil of this separation eventually causes a rift between the young lovers, causing Elizabeth to banish Edward from court. He then takes to writing to express his views of the world, and bury deep political metaphors into the works.

And, of course, that's only the tip of the iceburg. The story twists and turns all over the place, Edward of Oxford battling the wits of the manipulative William Cecil, and then eventually his son Robert, finding political struggles across the board, succession issues at stake, and a plethora of bastard kids from every player in the game mixing everything up.

Thank God I'd just watched The Tudors on Showtime so I could keep up with all of this.

So that is your very long and intricate set-up for the film. With that being only the most basic explanation of the film, you can tell that this is a complex, hard to follow, historically rich film (even if some is pseudo-history), and its really not going to be widely viewed or accepted because of that. But, there's some good things going for the movie, to be sure.

The opening set-up is brilliant, really. The movie opens with this meta-textual sequence showing Anonymous is actually a play not a movie, in modern day New York. The players take to the stage, and give a framework to the audience of the conspiracy theory's background. The play begins with Sebastion Armesto as Ben Johnson, running across the stage, hounded by the men of Cecil. The play then cross cuts, with a bolt of lightening, into the past, as we see the events of the drama played out in cinematic style on the screen.

The rest of the movie is directed very well, with a nice rich, cold look cast over Puritan-inspired London. Of course, a few tropes like the "I'm sad, so I'm looking out of a window and its raining and the rain looks like my tears" shots are kind of overused.

Rhys Ivans got drunk and was arrested
 at Comicon this year.This is not a
picture of that. This is how he
normally looks. 

The cast is undoubtedly the greatest strength of the movie, with amazing actor and real-life douche bag Rhys Ifans playing with dignity and character the Earl of Oxsford. Rafe Spall does an excellent job bumbling about as the foppish Shakespeare, and David Thewlis, of Harry Potter fame, disappears into his character as William Cecil.

The movie is a great, epic soap opera of the Tudor courts, sure to be enjoyed by those who have like the history-ish films and shows The Tudors and Cate Blanchett's Elizabeth movies. The story is a bit self-defeating though, as it requires some historical knowledge to really keep up on all of the political motivations of the characters involved in the drama. At the same time, the movie contradicts a lot of historical facts in order to temper the romantic tension between Edward and Elizabeth, so history buffs will probably find a few factoids to be annoyed with, while the common audience risks becoming lost. Ultimately, I was surprised by the direction of the film, which I expected, especially from the opening sequence, to be focused more on Ben Johnson, Christopher Marlowe, and the other members of the theatrical community, who are the more relatable  characters in the show. They act as a mirror, in the movie, in awe of the works of the new playwright, and Johnson is given plenty of time to drunkenly lament his own lack of talent in relation to the Bard, but they don't move the central story along at all. Instead, all weight is given to the cold members of the Elizabethan court. I think this focus makes the movie feel more cold and dry than it should, and makes the 2 hr+ runtime drag out a bit towards the end.

In the end, Anonymous left me unconvinced that Edward, Earl of Oxsford was the true Shakespeare as, even after 2 hours of deliberating over possible romantic reasons for it, the film really doesn't ever show why he'd need to keep his name off of the plays. Yeah, his wife was a Puritan. Oh well, he's still the head of the household, and holds all the property, not like her displeasure can actually sway him. Hell, Edward was a Catholic, by all records, anyway. And the theater was frowned upon by the Elizabethan court during the time of the film, but many court members still wrote, attended theater, and owned theaters, it wouldn't have been the social blunder that the movie portrays. In the end, the movie is a fair drama, but a poor argument for the idea that the author of Shakespeare's plays was anyone other than William himself.