Anonymous

This is a prime example of a fringe theory pushed too far and out of context. However, can you really expect authenticity when Hollywood tries its hand at a period piece? Everything in this was blown up, down and around the wall of sanity, in desperate attempts to appeal to the majority of consumers; even the opening scene holds America’s capitalistic hold on the story, with the camera tracking in modern day New York. Not quite what you’d expect from a movie about Shakespeare, yet that was only the beginning.

The Tagline asks ‘Was Shakespeare a fraud?’ And the film replies with a resounding yes. Circulating around the life, love and hardships of Edward DeVere who wasn’t permitted to write poetry (which he at one point emphatically refers to as his ‘soul’), he is ostracised from the aristocracy and forced into a solitary life with his family. He, however, continues to write in secret and tries to get his works published under the guise of Ben Jonson, who declines; Will Shakespeare, the drunk, bumbling actor accepts willingly. As the plot unfolds many political angles start flying out of every orifice the film can muster - however, the problem with orifices are that too many leaves holes.

I will graciously concede and say that the film had a nice story, great visuals and decent acting, but I could literally feel the producers reading the script saying, “Bigger. And add some incest in here too and a fight scene. And a…” It just felt forced. This was a personal affront to the literary tradition of cinema and theatre that Shakespeare himself is so vastly accredited to. That link is also emphasised in the beginning and end of the film, as if it is begging to be criticised for it inadequacies. That is the problem with many period dramas, only learned people can disassociate what is fact from romanticised fiction. The issue really accentuates when you aim to use primarily real and historically significant persons, such as Queen Elizabeth, presented by Roland Emmerich and John Orloff as an incestuous whore and Ben Jonson presented as a snivelling coward.

On occasion, this bastardisation of history works wonders and heightens the entertainment value, like Inglorious Basterds. The difference here is that the targeted audience for this film may take this film itself as a historical document, blindly accepting the Baconian Theory as a fact. Hopefully, most people will take the film at face value, as a spectacle-styled narrative.

Once you take away the ironically tame dialogue and the ridiculous storyline, then you can see that the style in which it is done allows you to try and enjoy it, as you would have to with Emmerich’s other films. It’s time-wastingly forgettable escapism under the guise of a period drama. It’s not Shakespeare. It’s not even close.

See Anonymous at York's Reel Cinema. For more information visit http://york.reelcinemas.co.uk/

Add Comment

You must log in to submit a comment.