The Play’s the Thing…

‘Anonymous’ Counterpoint to ‘Shakespeare in Love’

By Christopher P. Jacobs
Movies Editor

“This is a work of fiction. Any similarity to real people or historical events is purely coincidental.” The usual disclaimer shows up at the very end of the closing credits to the new film “Anonymous” for those few who sit through the entire credit roll. This modestly budgeted ($30 million) but convincingly well-mounted cinematic reconstruction of Elizabethan England, with all its political and romantic intrigues and its popular theatrical amusement “by the playwright we call William Shakespeare,” is an entertaining if far-fetched “what if?” scenario.

However, it’s hard to tell whether the limited theatrical exposure (opening in 265 theatres and in only 482 during its third week of release this past week) is calculated to build favorable word of mouth before a wide release in time for the holidays and growing Oscar buzz, or merely a cautious testing of audience response to see whether a wider release is even worth the expense. So far, audience reaction seems to be lukewarm (6.7 out of 10 on IMDb) and critical reviews are often scathing—not so much for the acting or filmmaking as for the apparently serious treatment of its iconoclastic concept that William Shakespeare was not the actual author of any of the works we call Shakespeare’s.

German director Roland Emmerich is best-known for science-fiction action movies set in the near future like “Independence Day” (1996), “Stargate” (1994), “Godzilla” (1998), “The Day After Tomorrow” (2004), and “2012” (2009). He’s also ventured into the past, into prehistoric times with “10,000 BC” (2008), and somewhat controversially into late 18th-century American history with “The Patriot” (2000). With “Anonymous” he takes on late 16th and early 17th-century British history and more controversy.

There have long been various conspiracy theories that a mere actor who never went to university could ever have written such poetic and densely philosophic literature as that attributed to Shakespeare. Most have been devised over the past two centuries by skeptical academics. Among those suggested as the true author have been Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and the Earl of Oxford, Edward DeVere.

“Anonymous” uses the last theory, combined with a number of recorded rumors about the sex life of Queen Elizabeth I that date back to her own era, to inspire a freely imaginative interpolation of a few basic facts into a dramatic story that has the ring of plausibility while playing fast and loose with dates and historical events to serve the plot. Of course films, historical novels, and literature have always done this, not the least of which Shakespeare’s own plays (which did not hesitate to parody contemporary figures its viewers would recognize). As long as an audience understands this, there is nothing to get terribly upset about John Orloff’s screenplay unless one is especially sensitive to the film’s one-sidedly negative depiction of William Shakespeare.

A comparable fantasy inspired by the world of Elizabethan drama was “Shakespeare in Love,” but despite all its inaccuracies, that film was a lively, witty, and loving ode to a budding young actor-playwright and the whole art and craft of live theatre, set against the sometimes-intruding sociopolitical realities of the period. Joseph Fiennes may have been a bit irreverent as Shakespeare, but remains an endearing protagonist. “Anonymous,” on the other hand, is at heart a dark sociopolitical thriller of the Elizabethan court, concerned more with power struggles that conflict with romantic liaisons, set partly against the background of theatrical life of the period and portraying Shakespeare as a semi-literate buffoon. Rafe Spall’s performance is reminiscent of Tom Hulce’s Mozart in “Amadeus,” but not at all sympathetic.

Spall is fine as Shakespeare, if you decide to go along with the premise, and Sebastian Armesto is adequate as playwright Ben Jonson, as is Trystan Gravelle as Christopher Marlowe. The hero of “Anonymous” is Edward DeVere, played very effectively by Rhys Ifans as a mature adult, Jamie Campbell Bower as a young man, and Luke Taylor as a child. David Thewlis and Edward Hogg revel in their roles as the slimily conniving advisers to the crown, William Cecil and his hunchbacked son Robert. Most memorable, however, is the central character to the film’s entire concept, Queen Elizabeth herself, played brilliantly by mother-daughter actresses Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson at different times of Elizabeth’s life.

Made at Studio Babelsberg in Germany, the settings, props, and costumes are all beautifully designed to capture the look of Elizabethan London in all its magnificence and squalor (with a bit of digital compositing to help out). Shot back in 2009, “Anonymous” is also notable as the first feature to use the new “Alexa” digital camera from Arri, providing an image virtually indistinguishable from film when output back to film for projection. The cinematography, by Anna Foerster, makes effective use of the wide screen, as well as different color palettes for different locations and time periods. The plot’s periodic jumping back and forth in time and place is sometimes hard to follow, but Foerster’s use of slightly different photographic styles helps give clues to what is happening and when.

“Anonymous” is an absorbing drama in its own right, presenting a vivid portrait of the often deadly political struggles of its era, whatever one thinks of its generally discredited premise (see James Shapiro’s 2010 book “Contested Will”). It’s worth seeing by anyone with any interest in Shakespeare or Elizabethan England or political conspiracies, and may even inspire some viewers to do a bit more research into the period.

Questions and comments: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)