Anonymous [DVD] [2011]

I became convinced that the Earl of Oxford is Shakespeare in 1988, and in 1997 I had a small book published called "De Vere is Shakespeare", so I have been looking forward to seeing this film for two or three years.
The positive side of "Anonymous" is that it presents the case for Oxford as Shakespeare, which is very rarely or never heard. However, the chronology is a complete mix-up and there are so many historical inaccuracies that the film is almost a disservice to the Oxford case. It is difficult to know where to start. Oxford`s manuscripts were probably held by his daughters, not Ben Jonson; Oxford`s wife died in 1588 and therefore was not with him when he died in 1604, though Oxford`s second wife, Elizabeth Trentham, may well have been with him; Oxford was not wounded by his fencing-master but by Thomas Knyvet,the uncle of Anne Vavasour, who had given birth to de Vere`s illegitimate son; Oxford did not kill his fencing-master, neither did he kill Knyvet as it was he who arrested Guy Fawkes in 1605; William Shakspere did not kill Christopher Marlowe; Richard III was not performed at the time of the Essex uprising, it was Southampton who requested a performance of Richard II, showing the deposition scene which would have implied the deposition of Elizabeth I, however, it is not known if the performance ever took place; I have never heard that Essex was the son of Elizabeth; I have never heard that Oxford was the son of Elizabeth; there is a good possibility that Southampton was the son of de Vere, the possibilty that he was also the son of Elizabeth is far less certain, though around 1572 Oxford was her "favourite"; Oxford was not on bad terms with his brother-in-law Robert Cecil, there are several letters from Oxford to Cecil including one in which Oxford welcomes the accession of James I; Oxford had not written "A Mid-summer Night`s Dream" when he was about ten, he probably started writing plays when he was about 22, and "A Mid-summer Night`s Dream" could have been written for the wedding of his eldest daughter Elizabeth to the Earl of Derby in 1595.
I can understand that the distortions of the chronology and the historical inaccuracies are in the film to propel forward an entertaining and logical storyline.
In 1578 Gabriel Harvey said that Oxford had the "countenance of one who shakes spears", though he actually said it in Latin, therefore it was probably Oxford who found Shakspere when his theatre company was performing in Stratford in 1585 and 1586. None of this is mentioned in the film. Most of the "Shakespeare" plays have storylines that are based on events in de Vere`s life from the time he returned from Italy in 1576 to about 1585. none of this is mentioned in the film though it is implied.
William Shakspere was illiterate, the only member of his family who could write was his brother Gilbert, who had very nice handwriting. Gilbert died in 1612, and it is only after Gilbert died that William`s very poor signatures appear. So Gilbert probably wrote the letters etc. for the family.
I thought that Rhys Ifans was brilliant as the Earl of Oxford, completely unrecognizable from the character in "Notting Hill", and David Thewlis was equally good as Oxford`s father-in-law William Cecil, Lord Burghley.
All in all, an entertaining film, and one which Oxfordians should welcome; and,despite the inaccuracies,I shall watch again with the author`s comments turned on.
There are in all of the "Shakespeare" plays an average of 24.54 concealed puns on the motto of the Earl of Oxford; and if anyone wants to know more about these concealed puns they can buy my book "The Wit of William Shakespeare" in the Kindle store, and in book form from Amazon.com in a few weeks time.

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.

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, anonymously 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. 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 heir. 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 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. Rosalinde 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.

I think you will enjoy it, and I hope this was helpful.