Anonymous

ANONYMOUS is one of the best & most accurate film portrayals of actual people & events - though license is taken, as in all dramatic renderings - you are likely to ever run across. Set in Elizabethan England, the central issue in the film is a presentation of the "Oxfordian Argument" that the works attributed to William Shaksper, of Stratford-upon-Avon, an apparently illiterate Elizabethan era street hustler, were actually written by The 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward DeVere, a favorite at Queen Elizabeth's Court, who spoke six languages fluently, was among the best educated people in the world, had the leisure time & office staff to write 37 plays, four long narrative poems & 154 sonnets whose life paralleled plot points, characters & locations in the works of "Shake-Speare" & who was recorded in his times as being one of the most accomplished poets & playwrights at Court.This is known among we who care as the "Oxfordian vs Stratfordian Authorship Argument", which is a pip of an intellectual delight - especially since we OXFORDIANS - believe it or not - ARE IN THE MINORITY! In other words, among people who teach Shakespeare, about 90% are convinced a man who apparently could not write his own name penned the greatest literature in the history of the world!That fact, puts us in the delicious position of not only being right on the issue, but also allows us to be righteous about being right! We're under-dog outsiders up against a vested-interest institution that is likely to be brought to the truth only slowly... one funeral at a time. Gotta bring a grin to even the most grizzled visage! Another among many examples people will believe the most preposterous malarkey regardless of reason or common sense: The Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, The Great Pumpkin & William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon! All of a heap! The more absurd the notion the harder held.ANONYMOUS presents the Oxfordian alternative to the risible Stratfordian yarn in an intelligent & extremely careful & clever manner by blending the details of actual events into imagined fictional scenes. The film does this in a way that details from one or another famous episode in DeVere's fabulously dissipated life are put together. For example, director Roland Emmerich, stages the scene where DeVere comes to realize the political power of the emerging popular theater of the Elizabethan era on a tennis court - the scene of a real physical assault by DeVere on Sir Phillip Sidney that became a major scandal & the first of a series of public brawls involving Oxford & his cadre of thugs right out of ROMEO & JULIET .The holder of the oldest noble title in England & by definition a "Gentleman" was not a "gentle man". The scene in ANONYMOUS shading toward this aspect of Oxford's character is the opening of the "You're Writing Again!" scene - DeVere's niggardly hundred pound dowry offer smacks of the real-life mind-set DeVere had toward Anne & their three daughters. He was profligate in his personal expenditures in the extreme & penurious & downright mean with his family. Edward DeVere may have been a real fun guy & the scion of the oldest peerage in England, but he was certainly no "prince" when it came to dealing with his wife & children. William Cecil, Lord Burghley, took custody of all three girls when Anne Cecil DeVere died in 1588 & married them off quite nicely. Both Anne's & Oxford's death sixteen years later are suspected suicides, by the way.The most important of the film's melded life/fiction scenes is the film's depiction of DeVere killing a servant - staged in the film as a precursor to the killing of Polonius in HAMLET as well as dramaturgically setting up the ill-fated, real-life Oxford/Cecil marriage..Though the timeline of the actual murder - which took place in a kitchen, the victim being an undercook whom DeVere fatally wounded in the leg - is such that it preceded the DeVere/Cecil marriage by four years raises doubts about whether Burghley used it to force DeVere to marry Anne. Four years is, indeed, a long time to stretch out a threat against a seventeen year old boy. But we're talking about "The right honorable Syr William Cecil, Knighte, Baron of Burghley, Knighte of The Honorable Order of The Garter, Master of Her Majesty's Court of Wards & Lieuries, one of the Lordes of Her Majesty's Privy Council and the Lord High Treasurer of England" - then in his early middle-age - who would certainly have had enough eminence over a seventeen year old - to whom he was a surrogate father since the boy was twelve - to force such a nuptial promise. And that the "I can have your head chopped off" reality of Cecil's power might intimidate the young DeVere for forty-eight months - who continued under his father-law-to-be's wardship right up to the wedding - isn't as far fetched as it first may seem.I like the whole Southampton as DeVere & Elizabeth's son idea. Fatherly love - a double theme in the film when you realize the relationship between Burghley & his son Robert is one of the major stories being so masterfully told - explains Shakespeare's gushy dedications to Southampton better to my mind than the assumption the two were homosexual lovers. DeVere's bisexuality was a known fact. However, not all love is "Eros", as the Greek would tells us... "without superfluous moiety." The film's paternal treatment of the relationship hits me as more emotionally likely. As a father I know you cannot have a greater love in this world than your love for your children. It's transcendent of self to the level of "Agape" in the ancient Aegean tongue. "Philos" doesn't cover it. Not even close. You'd sacrifice your life in half a heart-beat for your child. Everything is nothing to that. It's the same sort of thing DeVere expresses to Southampton in the sonnets & dedications. I buy it.The incest notion between Oxford & Elizabeth, on the other hand, is way beyond the pale. DeVere was born in 1550 during the reign of Edward The Sixth - not "Bloody Mary" as said in the picture. The matter is disposed of by Royal records of the King's christening gift to John DeVere, Edward's father & the 16th Earl of Oxford, of a silver chalice on that event. No matter how taken you may be with actor Edward Hogg's tearful delivery of this Oedipal news to Rhys Ifan's wonderful performance, the idea falls into the category of baloney, whereas the affair between Elizabeth & the married Oxford is a fact & could have resulted in Southampton's being their son. At least "kinda maybe". After all, it's ONLY A MOVIE! Not a Brittanica article, or a thesis for a doctorate in history from Stanford. To me "fatherly affection" seems the right interpretive choice. Besides, issue from Elizabeth isn't the only way DeVere could have been Southampton's father. The sexually adventurous sort of fellow Lord DeVere was may have thought cuckolding a fellow Lord would be great sport!ANONYMOUS is delightfully replete with smidgens of unhighlighted details such as bits of referential dialogue. For example, the writer, John Orloff, uses the word "reptilia" - a favorite epithet of DeVere's brother-in-law Lord Peregrine Bertie - to describe persons at court. Or the horrific fact of Oxford's marriage to Anne Cecil - a mess deluxe - by casting a minor child as "Bridget" DeVere who seems to be of mixed race, hinting at the actual real-life charges of infidelity Oxford had publicly leveled against his long-suffering wife as well as brushing the edges of OTHELLO. The film abounds in such wily touches that should delight any astute & well studied Oxfordian & makes this DVD is a real "must have"!Ps. If you're intrigued by the "Authorship Question", I'd suggest reading "SHAKESPEARE BY ANOTHER NAME" by Mark Anderson. Or J. Thomas Looney's (pronounced LOH nee) "SHAKESPEARE IDENTIFIED... " It's the book that started The Oxford/Stratford debate in 1920. Both are available as Kindle downloads. While you're at it, get Amazon's THE COMPLETE WORKS OF SHAKESPEARE & read it. Exposure to DeVere's magical use of the language will improve anyone's English!

To really get the most out of ANONYMOUS, you'll need to go into the film with a few things handy in memory. First, you'll need a basic knowledge of Shakespeare's plays. Not ALL of them or anything, just some of the mainstays like HAMLET, MACBETH, HENRY V, and maybe RICHARD III. Second, you'll need to know a little bit about theater during the Elizabethan Era, and that Ben Jonson (VOLPONE and THE ALCHEMIST) and Christopher Marlowe (DOCTOR FAUSTUS) would have occupied the same circles as Shakespeare. Third, you'll have to know a little bit about what the film is trying to accomplish. Though it sets things up plainly enough, that perhaps that man we call Shakespeare may have had little to no part in writing the plays we're all aware of in some way, it doesn't really explicitly start pinning authorship on Edward de Vere until a ways into the story. By then so much is flying around, it's easy to miss that subtle build up.It was for me, at least - and I don't claim to have known everything listed above when I first watched the film. It took a bit of research! But that's what I love about ANONYMOUS, that it's drawing upon so much to tell a story so unique to that era. Is it historically accurate? Well, about as much as SCHINDLER'S LIST. That is to say much of what happens here actually happened, but things are definitely skewed for the sake of drama. But it's fantastic drama!There are two storylines at work here, with the primary belonging to Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford. He's our tormented artist and the man for which the film is building the case of authorship. He's a member of the English court, the upper crust, and, as such, is supposed to carry himself a certain way. Unfortunately, this does not extend to his writings, which are seen a kind of taboo. Nevertheless, he does continue writing in private, and enlists the aid of Ben Jonson, whom the other half of the film follows. de Vere wishes to see his plays performed, but cannot put his own name on them, so he asks Jonson to have them performed in his name.Unfortunately, mistakes were made, and a drunken actor named William Shakespeare ends up taking full credit for the plays we all know and love.The film continues to follow the growing popularity of de Vere's plays, while giving us insight into his childhood and formal education, from which he drew inspiration for his works. All of this against the background of an unstable political climate being created by Queen Elizabeth's deteriorating health, leaving the next heir to the throne in question. Throw in a few twists and turns that absolutely shocked me and you have some fantastic drama.The story for ANONYMOUS is marvelously written by John Orloff, one of the writers of BAND OF BROTHERS, and directed by Roland Emmerich, who steps up his game tremendously to deliver a film that more than complements the screenplay. Emmerich, an aficionado of "popcorn flicks", doesn't drift towards drama too often, preferring large scale disaster/action films, but when he wants drama in front of his camera, he gets it. As such, nearly all of the actors and actresses here turn in A grade performances across the board, with special mention of Rhys Ifans, whose depiction of Edward de Vere manages to channel the torment of an artist born into the wrong station, and the passion of a man who could write HAMLET. I also really enjoyed Rafe Spall's hilarious take on William Shakespeare, not the man who would write HAMLET, but a man who would eventually leave his "second best bed" to his wife in his will.All of this to say: I really enjoyed this film. It's clear that everyone in front of and behind the camera were really passionate about the source material. It's detailed enough to be historical but, to a Stratfordian, could even be counted as pleasant alternate history. Thankfully, ANONYMOUS doesn't require you to take its side over the other because, at the end of the day, it's still a celebration of the works we know as ROMEO AND JULIET, TWELFTH NIGHT, and A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM (complete with accurate performances of the plays) and concedes that although the authorship of the plays is in question, the impact they've had on the world is undeniable.

Lleva castellano

This movie - like almost every other movie about historical events - is not an accurate account of what actually happened in Elizabethan times, but it give us an interesting glimpse into that reality - especially in its recreation of the Shakespearean stage and the Elizabethan court, as well as its impressive vistas of 16th century London. The central premise of the movie challenges the current orthodox view that the plays of Shakespeare were written by the commoner from Stratford, but were instead written by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Indeed, 'Anonymous' is a major effort to portray the most remarkable transference of literary credit from the noble and cultured Earl to the lowly yet devious/ingenious actor from Stratford. It has great acting all round from the cast. Particularly noteworthy are Vanessa Redgrave who plays the elderly Elizabeth, and her daughter Joely Richardson who plays the young Elizabeth. Their love of theatre is splendidly displayed through their facial expressions, as we first watch the elderly Elizabeth watching a performance of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream', and then as we flashback to the young Elizabeth delighting in a prototype of the same play written by and starring the pre-pubescent and precocious Oxford. All the other actors portraying the main characters - William and Robert Cecil, Ben Johnson, Will Shaksper, Essex, Southampton, and of course the teenage and elderly Oxford - were excellent/outstanding as well.However, unless you are very well aquatinted with Elizabethan history and Oxfordian theory, you will likely find it challenging on first viewing to sort out who is who and what happens when (there are frequent flashbacks) and distinguishing historical fact from plausible speculation and artistic license to alter the facts for dramatic purposes. Some standout examples of the latter:[SPOILER ALERT - although I don't think it's the type of movie that needs such a thing, you may want to jump to the last sentence]1) The opening scenes where Ben Jonson is trying to escape the pursuit of Cecil's men, runs into an empty theatre, jumps through the trap door to hide himself under the stage, and finds a chest wherein he hides a bundle of Shakespeare manuscripts. Immediately thereafter the theatre is torched and Jonson is hauled away to be interrogated on where the missing manuscripts are located. In fact the Globe theatre did burn down, but not until 1613 during a performance of 'Henry VIII'.2) The portrayal of Oxford's wife, Anne Cecil at an elderly age as a puritan hectoring her husband about his writing and his spendthrift ways, when in fact she died at an early age - well before most of the events the movie depicts. At least in her letters she always seemed deferential to her husband, a characteristic in common with what Oxfordians believe were her portrayals in the characters of Ophelia and Desdemona.3) The presentation of 'Richard III' to incite the masses during the Essex Rebellion. Yes, it is easy to identify the hunchbacked Richard III with Robert Cecil, but the historical sources seem to say that it was actually 'Richard II' that was performed which also depicted a king being deposed.Luckily, included in this DVD we have a running commentary of the movie by the writer and director which gives us a fairly clear idea of what is happening and why they chose the artistic alterations they made. One striking example which I might classify as bordering between artistic licence and plausible speculation is the scene where the teenage Oxford, incensed at finding someone had tampered with his writings, and noticing a stirring behind the curtain, plunges his sword into the hapless agent - imitating the scene where Hamlet slays the hidden Polonius/ William Cecil. In historical fact Oxford did slay a servant of William Cecil. The incident then leads to blackmail and accounts for Oxford's real life love/hate relationship with Anne.All things considered, for anyone interested in history or Shakespeare's plays, this is a movie well worth watching and rewatching.

The theory that Shakespeare's plays were written by the Earl of Oxford is presented here in the style of a Shakespearean play featuring the great playwright and his contemporaries (Elizabeth I, the Earl of Oxford, the Cecils) and some not quite contemporaries (Marlowe) as the main players. It's important to keep in mind that you're presented with a theory, not historical facts. Liberties are taken and an element of outrageousness is introduced, all in order to make the story more interesting. Just the thing Shakespeare (or whoever else it was wrote his plays) would have done.Add to that a cast of great British actors, many of whom as famous for their stage performances of Shakespeare as for their film careers, interesting sets and period costumes that look like clothes that have actually been worn rather than Hollywood costumes, and you get an interesting and enjoyable film indeed. Rhys Ifans is sensational and surprisingly dignified as Oxford, Vanessa Redgrave and daughter Joely Richardsen are well cast as Elizabeth I at different ages, Derek Jacobi is a perfect choice to deliver the prologue and Mark Rylance's performances in the various Shakespeare plays during the film are absolutely delightful.Ardent opponents of the Oxfordian theory and royalists to whom any British monarch is sacrosanct are probably well advised to stay away from the film. To them the portrayal of the playwright and his queen will likely seem offensive. If you can keep an open mind and remember that you are presented with one particular theory rather than the absolute historical truth, you may enjoy the film for the performances of the actors involved alone. The scenes from various Shakespeare plays performed during the film are hugely enjoyable. Directed by a theatre director and enthusiastically acted by some of the greatest Shakespeare actors of the 21st century in the style of the 16th century, these alone are a good reason to watch.The DVD is good. English subtitles are available and the following extra features are included: - Commentary with Director Roland Emmerich and Writer John Orloff - Deleted Scenes - Who is the Real William Shakespeare? featuretteI found the commentary interesting because it gave valuable insights in the theory presented (which I was not familiar with). Also the filmmakers are quite frank about what liberties they have taken with the truth and why. And while they and most of the actors involved seem to be leaning towards the Oxfordian theory, I never got the feeling that they are trying to convert the viewer.

Ce film est fantastique et tellement troublant. J'ai passé des années à étudier des pièces attribuées à un Barde de Stratford qui ne méritait probablement aucun hommage. Je lis donc un énorme livre en anglais, 'Shakespeare bu Another Name: the Life of Edward de Vere' de Mark ANDERSON qui étaye cette théorie. Je suis convaincue que tout comme on nous a martelé que Christophe Colomb a découvert l'Amérique, on nous a fait croire que Shakespeare de Stratford était l'auteur de ces merveilleuses pièces (ily a tellement d'argent en jeu dans le commerce Shakespeare)). Le film diverge sur certains points du livre d'Anderson mais il met en relief les incohérences des faits. Par exemple, comment l'homme de Stratford aurait-il pu connaître si bien l'Italie en ne s'y étant jamais rendu? Comment a-t-il pu dénoncer autant la vie à la cour, ses moeurs, ses 'coins sombres'? Tout simplement parce que De Vere devait se protéger puisque proche d'Elizabeth (et de James I) et que l'homme de l'ombre a délégué ses pièces à un 'faire-valoir' auquel nous attribuons ses chefs-d'oeuvre.L'une des plus grands mystères pour moi....

Film magnifique et extraordinaire à voir absolument