Anonymous (2011)

Everything is wrong but extremely well made. This is certainly Roland Emmerich's masterpiece, and although almost nothing is according to that part of reality which in spite of all is known to us of those days, it's a great story very well written. A few things are convincing, though.Above all, Rhys Ifans makes a very convincing Edward De Vere as the absolute nobleman he was, making a complete tragedy of his life. Edward Hogg as Robert Cecil is perhaps the most convincing character of all oiling the way of his intrigues in serpentine slyness. Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson as the Queen, Sebastian Armesto as Ben Jonson, Southampton and Essex, Burleigh, well, all the actors make a perfect job, and Will Shakespeare is finally exposed as the fake he most probably was. The rest is fiction.The film makes Elizabeth the mother of various bastards including all the major earls in a plot of all round incests, while more disturbing is the blatant historical incorrectness of making Shakespeare murder Marlowe ten years after his official death and the performance of Richard III at the moment of rebellion – it was actually Richard II. Of course, everything is exaggerated, there were no overwhelming massacres at Essex' demonstration, but never mind – it's a great film widely transcending and surpassing the obvious construction of the absurdly tall story of "Shakespeare in Love" and made more convincing, above all by the superb acting by all the actors (includiong Derek Jacobi, who actually only states the facts, and Mark Rylance as Condell – you immediately recognize his voice.) Only Bacon is missing. This is self-evidently a full score film and for all times.To sum it up: Most viewers seem to agree that this is Roland Emmerich's masterpiece - a feast for the eyes and intensive action all the way, great dramaturgy, the theatre scenes are all flamboyant parties and the highlights of the film, a fantastic although hardly plausible story, and at last a debunking of the phoney Shakespeare cult. The exaggerations, although overdone as always in Emmerich's films, are dramaturgically no detriment to the film but only add to a perfect theatrical drama of both splendour, knavery, humanity and tragedy.

'Anonymous' is a modern play on Broadway where a different version of Shakespeare's real life is presented. After a prologue, it flashbacks to Robert Cecil, the Earl of Salisbury with his men chasing after Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) with a collection of manuscripts. He hides them under the Rose and his pursuers burn down the theater. Then it flashes 5 years earlier, Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) is a drunken actor. It flashes 40 year earlier still, Edward De Vere, the Earl of Oxford (Jamie Campbell Bower/Rhys Ifans) is the real author of Shakespeare's works. It is a film about political intrigue in the English court during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (Joely Richardson/Vanessa Redgrave).There are a lot of questionable and complicated history. I almost feel a real need to be more familiar with the British history both royal and literary. There is something wrong with this version of history but I'm not a good enough scholar to pinpoint it. The start of the movie jumps around in time and it's easy to get lost. This is definitely an unique interpretation of history from writer John Orloff. Roland Emmerich's direction really needs to simplify the movie although the complicated story adds to the atmosphere. In some way, all the name dropping is addictive and fascinating. The acting is top notch. Emmerich films it with so much murky realism. It's a very tough call. There is enough great performances and the story is so audacious that I must recommend this.

Writing plays and poetry is the passion of the Edward, 17th Earl of Oxford but he can't share it with the world and is forced to let someone else take the credit. And there is Elizabeth I, strong as ever but in this movie with a very very interesting interpretation. I always like it when a movie offers an interesting view. Historic events are always seen from "a" point of view and written by winners/powerful. Who says that some of these elements weren't true? Note for this movie: don't leave your brain at home because there are lots of up and down flash backs. Don't get often confused but at a point I notices that I was trying to match scenes. Due to the plot, I didn't mind that much in the end. "It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves" ... who needs stars if there a queen to give destiny a hand.I like to hear Shakespeare. Fair enough, makes "easier" script writing but better to steal well than create badly. Loved being in a Elizabethan theater, but wasn't so amazed due to previously seeing 'Shakespeare in love'. Still the interacting between public and players, so very different from a film experience in NL. In house scenes were beautifully dressed. The CGI for outdoor palace/tower were well done. Costumes were elegant but not elaborate; liked Vanessa's black dress that she wears at the end.Rhys Ifans (Earl of Oxford) is brilliant, liked him in Notting Hill and can hardly believe it's the same man. Vanessa Redgrave was a good fragile older queen but not a good harsh one. Joely Richardson as the younger Bess was lovely and flirty enough. Jonson, David Thewlis and Edward Hogg (William & Robert Cecil) were solid, liked the "Henry V" player but not all actors. Not outstanding ... but Xavier Samuel (Southampton) looked delightful. It's a 8,5 movie due to the time line multi-cut-up but still a 9 because of the interesting twist. Maybe a bit too ambitious but still strong enough movie that I will enjoy watching again.

In order to enjoy this pseudo-historical thriller, one has to suspend natural desire for logic and order. For a start this is not history. The mystery of Shakespeare, the greatest writer in English language, will probably stay mystery. So, this simplistic movie,doesn't give any answers, nor pose any valid questions, it just tries to dazzle with bright colors. And it makes it's questionable claim with the heaviest of feet. The character of Shakespeare is made to be a step up from village idiot, dumb and illiterate. Little more subtlety wouldn't hurt. But this is Hollywood, a land where moneymakers rule over talent. So, simpler the better, says the one that holds the purse strings. It is hard to do art without money, but when money rules,art becomes obsolete.