As a firm believer that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the plays attributed to him, I thought that "Anonymous" would make my blood boil with its myriad historical inaccuracies and its nonsensical conspiracy theories. Instead, it nearly put me to sleep. None of the characters aroused any interest or sympathy. None of the characters had any life, so how could they interest me? None of the characters had a character arc, meaning that no one significantly changes or grew during the film. (Well, that's not completely true. The young de Vere played by Jamie Campbell Bower seemed to be an immature horn dog, while the older de Vere played by Rhys Ifans seems to have no interest in sex at all, but that wasn't character growth - that was an unlikeable character mysteriously becoming a very different unlikeable character with no explanation for the change.) As Edward de Vere, Rhys Ifans attempted to show his poetic soul by looking constipated. He didn't show a shred of humor, which is decidedly odd for a man who supposedly (if he was the real author, as the Oxfordians would have it) wrote more comedies than tragedies. His character claims that art must be political or else it is merely decorative, but he never expressed any political beliefs in the film. He had a personal grudge against the Cecil family, but there is a difference between the personal and the political. (By the way, I find the statement that art must be political or else it is merely decorative to be the most offensive thing in the entire film.)
According to the film, Edward's consummate goal was to install Essex on the throne rather than James. But why did he care? Was it some sort of prejudice against the Scottish? Was it out of some sort of affection for Elizabeth? He lusted for her as a youth, but we never see him show any affection for her as a woman, rather than as sex object (when they were young). (And if he had felt any deep affection for Elizabeth, one would have to question why he would care for such an empty-headed libertine.) Did de Vere actually think Essex's political policies were superior to James's political policies? If so, why didn't the film ever differentiate between their policies? Does this mean that Oxford would have thought the screenplay of "Anonymous" was merely decorative?
As played by Ifans, de Vere didn't seem to have a passion for anything, or any joy in living. He didn't even enjoy writing – he wrote to keep his "voices" from troubling him. (At the very end of the film, he shows some love for his son, but by that point it was too late for me to care about this cold fish.)
Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised that I was bored. I have long thought that it would be difficult to make a film with Oxford as the hero of an "Oxfordian" movie, because you would either have to portray him as a prig who was ashamed of writing "Hamlet," or as someone who would like to have taken credit, but was too big a wimp to say anything. This film manages to portray Oxford (at least when he is Ifans) as both a wimp and a prig.
The film did not bother me primarily for the way it treated William Shakespeare. It bothered me primarily because it was so damned boring.
Even if you accept the premises of the film, it doesn't make sense on its own terms. Queen Elizabeth is not presented as a Puritan (quite the opposite) and she clearly enjoys plays. Why, at the very end of the film, does she suddenly insist that de Vere's name never be on the plays? That comes completely out of left field. And Robert Cecil is supposed to be an ultimate political games-player and spy master. Why doesn't he know that the man he installs as King likes plays? Why did de Vere first learn about the power of plays to move people when he was a mature man (played by Ifans) who attended a public performance of a play by Ben Jonson? According to the film, de Vere had already written "Romeo & Juliet" and the "Henry IV" plays and had them performed at court - wouldn't he have already known about the power of plays to move people???
The second most offensive thing in the film (i.e., after the statement that art must be political or it is merely decorative) was changing the line "that can sing both high and low" to "that can kiss both high and low" - turning it into a cheap oral sex joke.
According to the film, Edward's consummate goal was to install Essex on the throne rather than James. But why did he care? Was it some sort of prejudice against the Scottish? Was it out of some sort of affection for Elizabeth? He lusted for her as a youth, but we never see him show any affection for her as a woman, rather than as sex object (when they were young). (And if he had felt any deep affection for Elizabeth, one would have to question why he would care for such an empty-headed libertine.) Did de Vere actually think Essex's political policies were superior to James's political policies? If so, why didn't the film ever differentiate between their policies? Does this mean that Oxford would have thought the screenplay of "Anonymous" was merely decorative?
As played by Ifans, de Vere didn't seem to have a passion for anything, or any joy in living. He didn't even enjoy writing – he wrote to keep his "voices" from troubling him. (At the very end of the film, he shows some love for his son, but by that point it was too late for me to care about this cold fish.)
Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised that I was bored. I have long thought that it would be difficult to make a film with Oxford as the hero of an "Oxfordian" movie, because you would either have to portray him as a prig who was ashamed of writing "Hamlet," or as someone who would like to have taken credit, but was too big a wimp to say anything. This film manages to portray Oxford (at least when he is Ifans) as both a wimp and a prig.
The film did not bother me primarily for the way it treated William Shakespeare. It bothered me primarily because it was so damned boring.
Even if you accept the premises of the film, it doesn't make sense on its own terms. Queen Elizabeth is not presented as a Puritan (quite the opposite) and she clearly enjoys plays. Why, at the very end of the film, does she suddenly insist that de Vere's name never be on the plays? That comes completely out of left field. And Robert Cecil is supposed to be an ultimate political games-player and spy master. Why doesn't he know that the man he installs as King likes plays? Why did de Vere first learn about the power of plays to move people when he was a mature man (played by Ifans) who attended a public performance of a play by Ben Jonson? According to the film, de Vere had already written "Romeo & Juliet" and the "Henry IV" plays and had them performed at court - wouldn't he have already known about the power of plays to move people???
The second most offensive thing in the film (i.e., after the statement that art must be political or it is merely decorative) was changing the line "that can sing both high and low" to "that can kiss both high and low" - turning it into a cheap oral sex joke.