Film Review: "Anonymous"

Anonymous (2011)

Director: Roland Emmerich

Writer: John Orloff

Stars: Rhys Ifans, Vanessa Redgrave, Joely Richardson, David Thewlis, Xavier Samuel, Sebastian Armesto and others.

Music by: Harald Kloser, Thomas Wanker

Distributed by: Columbia Pictures

Release date: 28 October 2011 (2011-10-28)

Running time: 130 minutes

Country: United Kingdom, Germany

Synopsis: The film Anonymous deals with the longstanding question of who wrote the plays of William Shakespeare. Here Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford, is presented as the real author of these works. The hero’s life is followed through flashbacks from a young child through to the end of his life. He is portrayed as the one who writes plays on topical subjects and is involved into incestuous relationships with his mother – Queen Elizabeth I of England.

Review:

It’s a well-known fact that, concerning such brilliant literary works as “Romeo and Juliet,” “Hamlet,” “King Lear” and the following, William Shakespeare’s authorship has long been disputed. Thus, some of the many notables who have called in question that the barely educated Shakespeare wrote those plays, include Sigmund Freud, Mark Twain, Charlie Chaplin, Orson Wells, famed Shakespearean actor Derek Jacobi, James Joyce, etc. One more theory was provided in 1920 by an English schoolmaster John Looney. According to him, Shakespeare's plays were written by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, a child prodigy and a highly educated person who developed a serious interest in the arts and wrote several poems under his own name. It’s exactly on this theory that the film “Anonymous” is evidently based; however, the events taking place in this movie have little to deal with the real history anyway.

Frankly speaking, I wasn’t much pleased by this story I was told. Moreover, the film made on me quite an unfavourable impression from the first seconds. Perhaps it was due to its whole atmosphere: I’m not sure if that old England of Shakespearean times was portrayed credibly in the film – at least to me, for I’m not an expert, it seemed quite believable, – but everything on the screen was too dark, too ominous and oppressive. I’ve heard, of course, of insanitary conditions in Europe in the beginning of the 17^th century, of poverty and unhealthy political situation there – still I don’t think it all could be so repulsive.

Another unpleasant aspect was the plot itself, especially the idea of incestuous relationships between Edward of Oxford and Queen Elizabeth, with all ensuing consequences as represented by Earl of Southampton – their illegitimate son, Edward’s brother and the Queen’s grandson at the same time. As I remember, somewhere in the middle of the film I found myself at a loss about who is who; besides, the whole situation is embarrassing, if not to say disgusting.

Now, at last, I’d like to mention some things I can’t find fault with. First of all, it’s the actors’ play, as I didn’t see anyone who would be an obvious miscast. Then, the version of someone another than Shakespeare who panned the well-known plays, however shocking and outrageous it might seem, was at least out of ordinary. Finally, Shakespearian times with Elizabethan theatre and its mysterious atmosphere were and still remain intriguing and strangely magnetic.

To sum it up, I’d like to say the following: it would be unfair and improper of me to adjudge this movie, so one should find time and watch it to decide for themselves whether it’s worth seeing or not. At least, I don’t think the film would be of any harm to someone: let people better see movies about Shakespeare than some new releases about monsters and warlike aliens.