Anonymous, The Film- My Review

Well, "The Squire" and I went to see Anonymous tonight.  I was very skeptical going in as I don't buy into the premise of the film, namely that all the works of William Shakespeare were actually penned by a member of the aristocracy, one Earl of Oxford. So I decided to assess it on sheer entertainment value alone.

First of all, the acting is unquestionably wonderful. I think the acting and the costumes and the CGI flyovers of the streets of London are the reason to see this film. I especially adored the CGI version of the old London Bridge with all of the shops and houses perched along it, just as it would have been in Shakespeare's day. I did not like mistakes such as the use of the double ring marriage ceremony for the Earl of Oxford and his wife Anne Cecil. You don't have to be a historian to know that men didn't wear wedding rings regularly until the early 20th century.  Ah, well...I suppose historical accuracy is unimportant to the man who directed Independence Day and 2012 (especially since this is supposed to be a revisionist history flick)!

Now if you take this story as fiction, which is what it is, (and don't let it raise your blood pressure) then you will probably enjoy it. It is certainly not one that I would want to own. It won't make your heart sing like Shakespeare in Love, which is a particular favourite of mine.  However it is a political thriller at heart and not a romance, and it does the political thriller genre quite well I thought. The story revolves around who will succeed Queen Elizabeth for the throne upon her death. Will it be the Scottish King James, or will it be one of the apparently many bastard children to whom Queen Elizabeth gave birth over her lifetime (oops, spoiler!).

So you see how the fiction factor is particularly high in this film.  Good thing too because hopefully this won't be introduced into high school curricula thus confusing the poor little things more than they already are.

Perhaps one of the good things about this film is that it will lead some of us to actually read up on  documented Elizabethan history.  I could certainly use a few more "facts" in my memory bank.  Although as Jane Austen said:

“Real solemn history, I cannot be interested in....The quarrels of popes and kings, with wars or pestilences, in every page; the men all so good for nothing, and hardly any women at all -- it is very tiresome: and yet I often think it odd that it should be so dull, for a great deal of it must be invention."
 Catherine Morland, Northanger Abbey

So, I suppose if history is mostly invention, then we should be used to stories like this one by now. Winston Churchill said "History is written by the victors", and now it is written by the screenplay writers and directors too!

Seriously though, I liked it, but I wasn't lovin' it. A good rental perhaps?

Anonymous- Was Shakespeare a Fraud? Methinks not!

Anonymous: The Film

"Set in the political snake-pit of Elizabethan England, Anonymous speculates on an issue that has for centuries intrigued academics and brilliant minds such as Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, and Sigmund Freud, namely: who actually created the body of work credited to William Shakespeare? Experts have debated, books have been written, and scholars have devoted their lives to protecting or debunking theories surrounding the authorship of the most renowned works in English literature. Anonymous poses one possible answer, focusing on a time when scandalous political intrigue, illicit romances in the Royal Court, and the schemes of greedy nobles lusting for the power of the throne were brought to light in the most unlikely of places: the London stage."

Rhys Ifans as the Earl of Oxford who in my opinion did NOT author any Shakespearean texts

As I was researching this post in anticipation of the release of "Anonymous" in a few weeks' time, I was actually sucked in just for a moment. Just a brief moment. And then I shook my head and did some more research and I am now quite convinced that although this might make a good story, it is a work of fiction. That is a polite way of saying that this film is a bunch of bunk. But that is OK, as long as it is made clear to viewers that this is truly fiction/bunk and we should watch it for entertainment and not information.

Sam Reid as the Earl of Essex in Anonymous

I do not claim to be an English scholar, but I have now read enough to believe that there are enough contemporary accounts referencing William Shakespeare of Stratford as the author of these plays and sonnets, to discount all of the so called evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, as an educated Canadian woman who is descended from English coal miners and cotton mill workers and shoemakers, some of whom were in the workhouse during the 19th century, I find the idea that only a highly educated member of the aristocracy could have written Shakespeare's prose and poetry offensive. Poppycock and twaddle I say!

Joely Richardson as young Queen Elizabeth and Jamie Campbell Bower as young Oxford

However, as someone who adores the film Shakespeare in Love, which never purports to be anything but fiction, I am open to seeing this film and hopefully enjoying it as an Elizabethan political thriller. There are certainly a fine collection of actors in this (Rhys Ifans, Vanessa Redgrave, Rafe Spall, Joely Richardson, David Thewlis et al).  There are also a lot of fab costumes. And I am a total sucker for a CGI flyover of the Thames in any century that isn't the 21st!

Vanessa Redgrave as the apparently not so virginal Queen Elizabeth

So bring on the intrigue, incest and incredible distortion of the facts. I just want the eye candy!

What do you think? Shakespeare or the Earl of Oxford? See the film or pass on it? Let me know what you think.