Ludicrous as I think this idea to be, I was nonetheless very curious to see if Anonymous might be a fun movie on its own terms. Last week it came out on DVD & PPV, & I got my chance to find out.
The film, directed by Roland Emmerich from a script by John Orloff, is a really crazy Renaissance fever-dream. Though the class & academic snobberies from which I believe the Oxfordian “theory” arises are the tale’s unmistakable subtext, it’s hard for me to imagine even a staunch Oxfordian thinking much of the case it makes, since Emmerich & Orloff ignore history at every turn.
Rather than offering even a partial list of its nonsense, suffice to say that, even aside from any speculation about Shakespeare’s authorship, the film shows no more interest in historical accuracy about the Tudor period than, say, Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds showed toward the history of WWII. Taking such liberties is, of course, a perfectly acceptable convention in period drama—for the most obvious example, it was Shakespeare’s own method in his history plays. But it seems an odd approach for a movie that claims setting the historical record straight as its mission.
Aside from any issue of accuracy, the plot, built on the idea that Oxford & Elizabeth I were longtime lovers, is overlong & overcomplicated. But for all that, I quite enjoyed Anonymous. This shouldn’t be mistaken for a recommendation, except to other fanatical (& thick-skinned) Shakespeare geeks for whom even a curio like this has its appeal. It’s a pretty bad movie, I suppose, but it’s a well-made movie, with an absurdly distinguished cast.
Rhys Ifans, with his handsome high forehead & his troubled eyes, is effective as Oxford, wisely not trying to make him likable—the Earl is an imperious & bitter sort, but with a quick, observant mind. Vanessa Redgrave & Joely Richardson are both beguiling as different vintages of Elizabeth, Sebastian Armesto makes an improbably self-effacing Ben Jonson, & Mark Rylance actually gets to do a bit of classical stage acting as Henry Condell.
But these are only a few examples of the fine work done by the huge cast. The actors skulk around the loving recreation of late-Elizabethan London in doublets & tights, murmuring exposition at each other, & if you’re a sucker for this sort of thing, as I am, there’s a decent chance you’ll be amused. Also, laborious as the plot may be, its final twist, though silly & unsavory, is at least a juicy humdinger.
What I most enjoyed about Anonymous, however, was, oddly, its depiction of the “real” Shakespeare. Played rather likably by Rafe Spall, this version of ol’ Will is a Dickensian knave, not just a fraud but a drunken, whoring lout, a vain buffoon, a blackmailer, & even a thuggish cutthroat—it’s implied he murders Christopher Marlowe for threatening to reveal his secret (some six years after poor Marlowe had already died in a barfight).
The urge to paint Shakespeare as this movie does isn’t very different, perhaps, than the urge of an underachieving student to doodle obscenely on the face of the valedictorian in the yearbook. It’s outrageous, of course, but—especially at this historical distance—it’s too human to be truly offensive. Shakespeare can take it.
The issue over the authorship has nothing whatsoever to do with class. it is about evidence, pure and simple.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the snobbery issue is a straw man designed to hide the true issues. Is it really snobbishness for doubters to point out that it is highly unlikely that a man who had little or no education, whose children were illiterate, who never left any writing other than six unreadable signatures with his name spelled differently in each one, who never traveled outside of London, who spent much time and effort engaging in petty lawsuits, who could not read books in French, Italian, or Spanish yet used untranslated material as his source material, who never left any books in his will, who left no letters, no correspondence, who did not elicit a single eulogy at his death was the greatest writer in the English language.
If you don’t think the arguments for the Earl of Oxford are serious ones, it means only one thing. You simply cannot be familiar with the evidence.
There are plenty of reasons why there is so much doubt about the Stratfordian attribution.
http://doubtaboutwill.org.
I will also take the liberty of posting a link in which laymen and scholars answered point by point the arguments of Stratfordians as contained in their “60 Minutes’ Broadcast.
http://doubtaboutwill.org.pdfs/sbt-rebuttal.pdf
The issue continues to exist only because William of Stratford is a cipher without any known biographical connection to the plays or poems while the connections for Oxford are too many to dismiss as coincidence.
Anonymous is fiction but it is one designed to begin to set the record straight on the true authorship of the Shakespeare canon. Mr. Emmerich has stated that his film provides one possible alternative explanation of the fact that we know next to nothing about the great Shakespeare, not the only explanation.
Though some may point out historical inaccuracies in the film, Emmerich, citing "Shakespeare in Love" as an example, says that the film contains an “emotional truth” rather than a literal one because “the drama is the primary concern.” He need not have had concern on that aspect. Anonymous succeeds both as an authentic drama and a plausible explanation for many of the problems surrounding the authorship question.
Mr. Schumann—thanx for your comment, & your links. You’re mistaken that I’m unfamiliar with this “evidence”; I’ve heard these arguments before, & I continue to find them unpersuasive. I’m intrigued by your concept of “fiction…designed to begin to set the record straight.” I do agree with Mr. Emmerich that his entertaining film represents “emotional truth”—I think that the source of the Authorship Controversy is entirely emotional; it derives from a revulsion at an (erroneous) image of who Shakespeare of Stratford was.
ReplyDelete