Anonymous
Tags: romantic, intrigue, murder, flashback

Plot synopsis:
After a monologue delivered by Derek Jacobi, the film opens in 1603, with Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, ordering a desperate search for a trove of manuscripts. Ben Jonson, who has the manuscripts, flees down the streets of London and into the theatre known as The Rose. Hot on his heels, the soldiers who have been sent to arrest Jonson, break down the doors and intentionally set the theatre alight. Successive flashbacks cast us back five and then forty years, as the film evokes the reputed life of Edward de Vere from childhood through to his entanglement in an insurrection, and later on to his deathbed.
The main action takes place five years earlier in 1598, a decade after the defeat of the Spanish Armada, as political intrigue flourishes between the Tudors and the Cecils (father William and son Robert), over the succession to Queen Elizabeth I. In flashbacks, de Vere is portrayed as a prodigious genius, writing at eight or nine years of age (1558/1559) A Midsummer Night's Dream, de Vere acting the role of Puck before the young queen Elizabeth. He is then forced to live in the repressive, puritanical house of William Cecil where, years later, he kills a spying servant lurking behind an arras, much like the death of Polonius in Hamlet. William Cecil uses this murder to blackmail de Vere into a loveless marriage with his daughter, Anne Cecil, compelling him also to renounce literature. De Vere later becomes the Queen's lover, and sires – unknown to him – an illegitimate son; the son is adopted, becoming Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton, but his true parentage is hidden from all but the Cecils.
De Vere must struggle against a taboo that would forbid him to write; against his wife's impatience with his literary work as a dishonour to her family; and against the Queen's counsellors. Foremost among these is his father-in-law William Cecil, who believes that theatres are sinful. Cecil's plan to have James VI of Scotland, the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, crowned king is also threatened by the presence of de Vere's and the Queen's child, who would be an alternative contender for the throne, and also of pure Tudor lineage.
Almost four decades after his private premiere, de Vere visits a public theatre and is deeply impressed by the way spectators can be swayed. The play, written by Jonson, is halted mid-performance by the royal militia because of its allegedly seditious content. Jonson is arrested and imprisoned. Much taken by the propagandistic power of art, de Vere decides to employ his secretly written plays for the promotion of the Earl of Essex's cause (Essex being another of the Queen's illegitimate sons) over the candidate preferred by the Cecils, writing Henry V and, later, Richard III as propaganda designed to foment revolution. He contacts Jonson, who is confined in the Tower of London until de Vere uses his influence to free him, in order to have his play Henry V staged under Jonson's name. Jonson is unhappy about the plan, assuming that the play will be an amateurish effort that will tarnish his name. Jonson does not claim authorship, allowing an unscrupulous young actor, William Shakespeare, to step up on stage as author. It is this "drunken oaf" who takes on the role as de Vere's front man, while Jonson becomes de Vere's only confidant in the truth.
Shakespeare however, having discovered the real author's identity, extorts money from de Vere to build the Globe Theatre, and wangles £400 per year for posturing as a front. After Christopher Marlowe stumbles on the truth that Shakespeare's inexplicable talents hide the genius of another hand, he is found with his throat slit. Jonson later confronts Shakespeare and accuses him of the murder.
At the climax, de Vere uses the play Richard III as a thinly veiled attack on the hunchbacked Robert Cecil. The plan is to incite a mob to march against Cecil, and thus weaken his position at court. At the same time, Essex is to march with the Earl of Southampton to the Palace, to promote his own claim to the succession. Meanwhile, de Vere writes Venus and Adonis to remind the Queen of their old love. He hopes to see her again in an atmosphere of renewed intimacy, and to persuade her to dismiss Cecil.
The plan fails, however, as a jealous Jonson, unaware of de Vere's plan, betrays the plot to Cecil. Jonson soon learns of the plan, but fails to alert Francesco of his betrayal in time, as the mob is massacred by soldiers with muskets and artillery pieces, stopping it from joining Essex. The Queen, swayed by Cecil, thinks that Essex is trying to depose her. Essex and his men are lured into the Palace courtyard, where they are ambushed by soldiers firing muskets from the balconies above. Essex and Southampton surrender honorably. Essex is later executed, but not before screaming "God save the Queen!". Southampton is later released.
Robert Cecil then tells a broken de Vere that Elizabeth had other bastard sons – one of whom was de Vere himself. If true, it would mean that de Vere committed incest with his mother. He has a private audience with Elizabeth, at which the Queen agrees to spare Southampton, but insists that de Vere remain anonymous as the true author of "Shakespeare's" works.
After the Queen's death, James VI succeeds as James I of England, though Cecil's hopes for a more puritanical regime are shattered when James reveals himself to be an avid "theater man". Shakespeare retires on his ill-gotten gains to Stratford to become a businessman, and de Vere dies in 1604, having commended his manuscripts to the care of a repentant Jonson. Cecil, however, still wants the manuscripts destroyed. With the destruction of The Rose, he believes them destroyed, but he later discovers they have survived. Nevertheless, the "truth" remains concealed: that Edward de Vere, not the nearly illiterate Shakespeare, is their real author.

Review: In his film of the same name, director Roland Emmerich seems to be suggesting that this idea is not exactly new, and that the plays and poems attributed to William Shakespeare were essentially motivated by the same desire.
He takes the age-old mystery of "Who really wrote Shakespeare's plays?" and turns it into a political thriller.If it's difficult for you to imagine a historical costume drama done by the director of "Universal Soldier," "Stargate," "Independence Day," "Godzilla," "The Day After Tomorrow" and "2012," you are not alone.
The cast is simply to die for: Vanessa Redgrave as Queen Elizabeth the elder; her daughter Joely Richardson as Elizabeth the younger; Rafe Spall as Shakespeare (a talentless clod of an actor); Sebastian Arnesto as Ben Johnson (a talented playwright, but not even in the same galaxy of greatness as the author of Shakespeare's plays); David Thewlis as William Cecil; Edward Hogg as Robert Cecil; Derek Jacobi doing the prologue; Jaime Campbell Bower (from "Camelot") as the younger Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford; and Rhys Ifans as the older Edward de Vere, and the real author of Shakespeare's work.As presented, the plot is not at all a scholarly argument for the Earl of Oxford's authorship of these plays.
I did find Rafe Spall pretty annoying as Shakespeare, but perhaps I should give him the benefit of the doubt as this was probably the aim of the character.With regards to the historical rewrite then surely if people are interested in what 'Anonymous' suggests they'll try to find out more about the subject in order to make their own mind up.
Looney proposed a somewhat forgotten nobleman named Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, as being the true identity of the poet/playwright William Shakespeare in a book called simply "Shakespeare Identified"."Anonymous" is a film based on Looney's original notion that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, penned the plays which would become the greatest literary canon of the English language.
Unlike today, playwrights and poets lived on the periphery of society, and a nobleman of the rank of Oxford writing plays containing charged political rhetoric would have been scandalous, hence the Shakespeare-Oxford theory.The hero of the movie is actually his colleague Ben Johnson, the Elizabethan playwright who has always dwelt under the shadow of Shakespeare, especially in modern times.
However, as shown in the film, primary source evidence survives which speaks of Edward de Vere as an adolescent putting on a short play for the young Queen Elizabeth.So the film brings us back to the fundamental question: did Oxford write the Shakespeare Canon or was it the man from Stratford?
While it is clear that writer John Orloff and director Roland Emmerich believe that Edward De Vere, The Earl of Oxford, and not Will Shakespeare, wrote the infamous and iconic plays we have celebrated for 400 years, my advice is to watch this as a Hollywood movie and not a docu-drama.
Though talented writer Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) was De Vere's first choice, the lack of morals by the illiterate actor Shakespeare allows him to seize a capitalistic opportunity and soak up the audience love.The best part of the film is the realistic look and feel of the streets, the Globe Theater and costumes.
"The most performed playwright of all time, the author of 37 plays, 154 sonnets & several narrative poems...and yet not a single manuscript of any kind has ever been found written in Shakespeare's own hand." A movie that explores the theory that Shakespeare didn't write any of the things that he is said to.
Under that logic, every millionaire person should be an artistic and scientific genius.The film Anonymous tried to examine that hypothesis about Shakespere, and even though I liked it, I think its screenplay should have been better polished, because its frequent chronological jumps, court intrigues and numerous characters make it occasionally a bit confusing and tiring.
They engage in dynastic and historical gymnastics in order to support the pathetically weak plot, mainly, that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, wrote the 37 plays attributed to Shakespeare.
At the most basic level, ANONYMOUS does one thing right: It's damn interesting and entertaining.Even as a person who never liked Shakespeare's plays (especially the dreaded ROMEO AND JULIET), the film manages to be involving.
We're introduced to a world with many characters and time periods jumping all over the place, but it gets easier to grasp once you get to know the characters.Overall, ANONYMOUS is an interesting and entertaining film that will get people talking about who the real author of the plays are.
This film is not recommended.With apologies to Shakespeare, the true talent, thus, my feeble attempt at (mostly) iambic pentameter:Anonymous, a film of cheese and ham, Questions the legend of Shakespeare, William, Whose work it claims the sole property of, Edward DeVere's, Earl, and a class above, Theory and conjecture, Will's name to malign, A film not noble, literate, or refined, Its tale quite shallow, protesting too much, Spouting nonsense, drivel, dreck, and such.A production with much to admire, Before all logic begins to expire, Sensationally, a work of fiction, Unconvincing in its own conviction, Visual spectacle, or farce, perhaps, Intelligence and wit well nigh elapse, Although I may seem to kvetch and complain, This film ultimately doth entertain.The thespians display their skills and crafts, While unintentionally providing laughs, Over-emoting as they misbehave, The likes of Jacobi and Ladies Redgrave, Rhys Ifans well plays lover and writer, Were only Orloff's script a bit tighter, Rafe Spall's the bard as wretched sot, an eyeful, Poor Will should sue for slander and libel.Disaster, thine mainstay of Emmerich, Part director, part showman, his prime niche, For depth and clarity, he will not delve, Note: Independence Day and 2012, Whilst not the disaster we've come to expect, The film has little to awe or respect, It plays fast with the facts, and offers nil, Except sets, that in some measure, fulfill.With all its pomp and expensive wrappings, Lavish costumes doth not disguise its trappings, But thy foul temper and malaise spills forth, Yielding a vile film of lesser worth, A ill-conceived venture, shrill, and unkind, Outlandishly ornate and out of its mind, A stylish film, yet so misbegotten, One hopes Anonymous is soon well forgotten.GRADE: CNOTE: Visit my movie blog for more reviews: www.dearmoviegoer.com.
For the first part of the movie the audience doesn't sympathize with any of the characters: Ben Johnson is pointless, we might feel him only during the ending scenes, but I think is a hateful character and the Earl of Oxford that should be the protagonist doesn't seem to be it.Moreover, I HATED the reconstruction of London made by computer, it gave to the film this sense of artificiality and surreality, which didn't helped at all the plot.I admit, the acting was fairly good and the story itself is very interesting as a new vision of Shakespeare's fame and works.
I was riveted from start to finish.However, I see the Shakespeare-was-Shakespeare contingent of the reviewing press has the long knives out for this film and, not surprisingly, are not honest enough to admit that their real beef is the authorship angle.The New York Times typist, for instance, says that the Oxfordian theory, "sometimes granted the unwarranted dignity of being called a theory, is hardly new." I say, okay Mr. Smartypants Stratfordian, since you feel there's scant evidence in favor of de Vere, let's review how ALL Shakespearean biographies are written, inasmuch as we know about ten solid facts about the fellow from Stratford (including: his entire family was illiterate, and the only writing in his home other than the Bible were some business receipts).
The sonnets, in particular, closely correspond to de Vere's personal life in a way that cannot be easily dismissed.Now, the film takes liberties with actual facts of the Oxfordian theory in order to make a compelling drama, but a sound case is made in many good books--one of the best being "Shakespeare by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare" by Mark Anderson; also, good resources can be found on the internet at the Shakespeare Oxford Society website.
The film Anonymous attempts to be seductive, sexy, witty and adventurous- all of the attributes of any of Shakespeare's work, but it instead some across as troublesome, clique and annoying.Rhys Ifans I have been a fan of for some time, but here is his role of Earl of Oxford he is almost unrecognizable as an aging man who believes the world can change by force of words as opposed to force of sword.
I don't know and I cannot judge this, since I am not a Psychoanalyst, but there must be such a component beneath these efforts of theirs, to drag everything that is of some value (or at least has been until now) through the mud of their contorted and sick minds.I don't know what these people are smoking or snorting up their noses, but this, always in my own and very personal view, has absolutely nothing to do with true creativity, nor taste.It just shows us how jaded and ignorant some people, especially high placed people these days, can be, and how pretentious they can become when they reach the top.A nice dose of humbleness and a bit more wisdom would suit them best, but alas, they keep on coming with these preposterous and ill-fated (apparently not by a vast majority of viewers, naturally) subjects, stating facts that are not grounded in any serious publication, and which may probably be more suited in trash papers like The Sun or other gossip Newspaper of sad present fate...But then again, my opinion may not count much these days, since everyone is out for a shock-treatment, rather than using their own brains for something useful and truly constructive.How easy it is these days, to destroy the work of a lifetime of people who really did sweat their daily bread and butter, and how sad it is to see how other less talented (at least in my view) people, struggle to become the "talk of the town", for their own personal satisfaction.Oscar Wilde and Noel Coward would probably know this phenomenon better than I, and would probably have much more to say in this regard, certainly with a lot more style than I could ever muster, and even be able to add some very poignant notes to what I just described.Alas, such sublime authors do not exist anymore, and all we are left with are some comic strips and cheap literature that entices just the occasional reader to open a real book.
At most points I couldn't tell which character was which (I'm pretty sure there were at least five present in more than one timeline and only one of them was played by the same actor through each one) and I had no clue what was going on in terms of narrative.The basic plot will tell you that this is a fictional telling of the much-debated topic of whether William Shakespeare's work was written by the man himself or if they were written by Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford.
Instead we focus more on things like the Essex Rebellion against Elizabeth I, which takes up a majority of the plot and doesn't fit fluidly at all within the Shakespeare storyline, where we get to experience a myriad of actors hamming it up in the most unfortunate of ways.In fact, the whole cast is pretty miserable here, with the one exception being Rhys Ifans as De Vere.
"All art is political," says Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (the real Shakespeare) in this stunning movie and nothing could be truer for Anonymous.
Emmerich and Orloff have challenged the gods of Elizabeth History (the Virgin Queen is no such thing), the literary gods (Shakspere is no Shakespeare) and the gods of succession to today's English throne (most likely unconsidered by the author and director).The main question asked in a preview in New York City was "is this true?" And the answer to the question is overwhelmingly "yes." Orloff and Emmerich have changed some of the dates around to make it into a coherent story, but the relationship between the characters is exactly what happened during the Elizabethan era.
You would think, therefore, that Roland Emmerich's new film Anonymous, which promotes the theory that the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, wrote Shakespeare's plays would be about a tussle between de Vere and Shakespeare.Nope.In the two hours' passage of the film, Oxford (a wooden Rhys Ifans) and Shakespeare (played as a fame-seeking semi-illiterate bumpkin by Rafe Spall) meet rarely and then only in passing.
Opposing the conspirators is Robert Cecil, Elizabeth's Puritan adviser, played with appropriately gloating malice by Edward Hogg.As the plot develops, de Vere -- the father of one of the would-be usurpers -- occasionally passes manuscripts to playwright Ben Johnson (Sebastian Armesto), who arranges for their production.And that's about it for the controversy.As a piece of conspiracy drama, the film succeeds.
The acting was superb--Rhys Ifans was absolutely stunning as Edward De Vere, capturing so well his passion and pain as the real author (according to the story) of Shakespeare's works.
Such is the case with Anonymous.In this story, which furthers the case of a scholarly minority who do not believe William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) authored all of those plays, Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans), was the true genius behind the words.
However, Anonymous truly is historical fiction.Just as Shakespeare doubters gleefully point out the striking lack of evidence missing from his authorship such as original editions, lack of fame in his lifetime, no mention of the plays in his will, etc there is also scant evidence Edward de Vere authored them either.
Visually it's a great movie to look at but other than that, this movie has far too little else to offer.Most people are hating on this movie because it's filled with historical inaccuracies and basically non of it is based on any facts, even though the movie presents itself as if its telling a true and historical story, concerning Shakespeare and his well known stage-plays.
in 2012.In 2011 he also gave us the film Anonymous, thankfully in time for us to enjoy before (at least according to Mr. Emmerich) the world ended a year later.Anonymous is a fantasy presented as historical fact, claiming that Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare's plays or poetry.
Like a true Shakespearean play, inbuilt comedy and tragedy come from Rafe Spall as the fraudulent Shakespeare and Edward Hogg as Robert Cecil, the film's second antagonist and the thorn in de Vere's side.
The movie is a political thriller in which they assume that Shakespeare didn't wrote his plays, but Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford did.
Director Roland Emmerich, best known for disaster films like Independence Day, recreates Elizabethan England in delicious detail, from dirty streets to robust theaters.What he doesn't do is convince me that the Earl, Edward de Vere, was the author (the Oxfordian Theory).I have to catalogue the notion in my head along with the claims for Sir Frances Bacon, Ben Jonson, and many others including a committee.
'All art is political, otherwise it would just be decoration.' ANONYMOUS is first and foremost a beautifully crafted film - script, direction, lighting, costume, music, cinematography, acting - and whether or not the viewer buys into the premise that the plays and sonnets of Shakespeare were the work of Edward de Vere instead of the apparently illiterate actor 'William Shakspar' is unimportant.
The plays have become the favorite entertainment of the aged Elizabeth I (now Vanessa Redgrave) and De Vere soon feels the need to protect his privacy and asks Jonson to accept credit for writing the plays, but Jonson in turn passes that authorship to an illiterate actor named William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) who uses the lie to increase his popularity and wealth.Coloring the atmosphere is the palace intrigue of who will be Elizabeth's heir - and the Cecils (David Thewlis father and Edward Hogg son) decide it must be James of Scotland (not a choice Elizabeth would make).
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?.
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?.
Told through the eyes of aspiring playwright Ben Jonson, we watch as lecherous stage actor Will Shakespeare steps up to claim credit for the anonymous plays and land a place in history.Emmerich would've been the last person I'd ever expect to put together an interesting Shakespearean drama, but he actually manages to pull it off.
He directs a film that centers on the theory that Shakespeare's works were actually written by Edward De Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford.
If this entire film is a fabrication then I also don't mind.I certainly found this movie to be enjoyable, the story was well written, the visuals seemed authentic, albeit somewhat theatrical, the acting was also good, I found Rafe Spall as Shakespeare to be quite a fun character, he truly is good at playing the fool.
I wouldn't venture as far as to say that I believe that myth, but I would say that it made for an extremely compelling film and I left feeling quite inspired to go read Shakespeare's complete works.Rhys Ifans played the Earl of Oxford, the "man behind the magic" in Anonymous.
The film takes as its premise that the Shakespeare plays were really written by Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford.
The movie Anonymous takes the position that Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, a prominent figure in Queen Elizabeth's court, anonymously wrote Shakespeare's works.