Anonymous

[Brian in Mesa]

Anonymous

Release Date: October 28, 2011 (limited)
Studio: Columbia Pictures (Sony)
Director: Roland Emmerich
Screenwriter: John Orloff
Genre: Drama
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for some violence and sexual content)
Website: Anonymous-movie.com

Starring: Rhys Ifans, Vanessa Redgrave, Joely Richardson, David Thewlis, Xavier Samuel, Sebastian Armesto, Rafe Spall, Edward Hogg, Jamie Campbell Bower, Derek Jacobi

Plot Summary: Set in the political snake-pit of Elizabethan England, "Anonymous" speculates on an issue that has for centuries intrigued academics and brilliant minds ranging from Mark Twain and Charles Dickens to Henry James and Sigmund Freud, namely: who was the author of the plays credited to William Shakespeare? Experts have debated, books have been written, and scholars have devoted their lives to protecting or debunking theories surrounding the authorship of the most renowned works in English literature. "Anonymous" poses one possible answer, focusing on a time when cloak-and-dagger political intrigue, illicit romances in the Royal Court, and the schemes of greedy nobles hungry for the power of the throne were exposed in the most unlikely of places: the London stage.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[AZZenny]

Disclaimers: 1.) I am an avid student of pre-Restoration English history and nobility. 2.) I know English lit, especially poetry, very well. 3. I have leaned towards the Oxfordian theory of 'Shakespeare' for some time. 4) I love really well-done historical fiction, whether book or movie.

OK, that out of the way -- I thought this movie was excellent; I'll definitely want to see it again. My 2 friends and I had one vote for 'fantastic,' one for 'really entertaining,' and me for 'fascinating and extremely well-done.'

Rhys Ifan as Edward DeVere, 17th Earl of Oxford is just superb. Actually, with the exception of the guy who played the pompous actor William Shakespeare a bit too broadly, all the acting was subtle, masterful, and beautifully played.
The costumes and sets were nearly impeccable for the period. Much of the scenery was done by computer in order to meet a tight $30M budget, and it was only rarely noticeable. The younger QEI didn't seem to mature quite consistently in the flashbacks, but that was my only quibble.

Overall, it gets high grades for visuals and historicity.

The directing was sure and smooth, and Emmerich handed the story to the actors in a way I wouldn't have expected. At a few points - especially the beginning as the complex kinship and political relationships of the many main characters were being drawn - the pacing lagged a bit, but once you get who's who, it picked up.

And what really wowed me was the way they drew together so many lingering questions from Elizabeth's court that historians still debate, as well as legitimate issues about Wm. Shakespeare's life and works - like the sly political relevance of many of the plays that he got away with, the question of whether the sonnets were written in part to a young male, etc.

Yes, it's a conspiracy that's as tightly-woven as any paranoid's dream, but conspiracies and illegitamte heirs and devious plots for the succession were the very marrow of the royal courts back then -- no one piece of the story is unlikely -- just all of it put together.

 

[azsportsfan01]

Take down of the film by pointing out some of the historical inaccuracies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/m...re-wasnt-shakespeare.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

 

[AZZenny]

LOL -- OK, it's interesting to see some of the actual inaccuracies in the Oxfordian theory -- and he points out a few, although some he cites suggest a bit of knee-jerk reaction - like Richard the III -- he would have been chosen as a subject because there were (historically inaccurate!) theories, not widely believed at the time that he may have been a hunchback, and thus the perfect link to the Chancellor. So historically, the surprise and anger of the official makes sense.

Anyhow, this prof is frothing and spluttering a tad more than necessary, and when he disparages the actors, it became clear he's gotten a little unhinged over this. The film is a drama -- a very well-made, exceptionally well-acted drama. (I thought portraying Kit Marlowe as a villain was uncalled for, myself, though he was regarded as arrogant.)

Shakespeare (whoever he was) played loose with the details of history in service of a great story, as the prof mentions. His take on Richard III is now known to be extremely inaccurate in many respects, but it served the playwright's purpose, and it hangs on as the prevailing view to this day.
(...and there are a good many peculiarities in the official/academic Wm. Shakespeare story, too; but it's always been OK to just brush them aside.)

What he should be legitimately upset about, is that the producers and author of the film have prepared and distributed a lesson plan based on the Oxfordian view to schools. When entertainers start doing lesson plans, we're in trouble.

But then, maybe Richard III is finally getting revenge.

 

[azsportsfan01]

LOL -- OK, it's interesting to see some of the actual inaccuracies in the Oxfordian theory -- and he points out a few, although some he cites suggest a bit of knee-jerk reaction - like Richard the III -- he would have been chosen as a subject because there were (historically inaccurate!) theories, not widely believed at the time that he may have been a hunchback, and thus the perfect link to the Chancellor. So historically, the surprise and anger of the official makes sense.

Anyhow, this prof is frothing and spluttering a tad more than necessary, and when he disparages the actors, it became clear he's gotten a little unhinged over this. The film is a drama -- a very well-made, exceptionally well-acted drama. (I thought portraying Kit Marlowe as a villain was uncalled for, myself, though he was regarded as arrogant.)

Shakespeare (whoever he was) played loose with the details of history in service of a great story, as the prof mentions. His take on Richard III is now known to be extremely inaccurate in many respects, but it served the playwright's purpose, and it hangs on as the prevailing view to this day.
(...and there are a good many peculiarities in the official/academic Wm. Shakespeare story, too; but it's always been OK to just brush them aside.)

What he should be legitimately upset about, is that the producers and author of the film have prepared and distributed a lesson plan based on the Oxfordian view to schools. When entertainers start doing lesson plans, we're in trouble.

But then, maybe Richard III is finally getting revenge.

I know very little about Shakespeare besides the basic stuff you learn in school. Found the article interesting.

 

[Stout]

LOL -- OK, it's interesting to see some of the actual inaccuracies in the Oxfordian theory -- and he points out a few, although some he cites suggest a bit of knee-jerk reaction - like Richard the III -- he would have been chosen as a subject because there were (historically inaccurate!) theories, not widely believed at the time that he may have been a hunchback, and thus the perfect link to the Chancellor. So historically, the surprise and anger of the official makes sense.

Anyhow, this prof is frothing and spluttering a tad more than necessary, and when he disparages the actors, it became clear he's gotten a little unhinged over this. The film is a drama -- a very well-made, exceptionally well-acted drama. (I thought portraying Kit Marlowe as a villain was uncalled for, myself, though he was regarded as arrogant.)

Shakespeare (whoever he was) played loose with the details of history in service of a great story, as the prof mentions. His take on Richard III is now known to be extremely inaccurate in many respects, but it served the playwright's purpose, and it hangs on as the prevailing view to this day.
(...and there are a good many peculiarities in the official/academic Wm. Shakespeare story, too; but it's always been OK to just brush them aside.)

What he should be legitimately upset about, is that the producers and author of the film have prepared and distributed a lesson plan based on the Oxfordian view to schools. When entertainers start doing lesson plans, we're in trouble.

But then, maybe Richard III is finally getting revenge.

Okay, first of all, no, that is 100 percent wrong. Humpback Richard has been completely and utterly rejected by the historical community. Sorry, had to get that out of the way

Secondly, the Earl of Oxford conspiracy theorists simply ignore the fact that most of the evidence points directly where it should--to the REAL author of Shakespeare's plays--you know, William Shakespeare.

Thirdly, this movie looks like it takes an overly dramatic 'oh woe is Oxford, what has history done to him' viewpoint of the topic.

Fourthly, it looks like a killer movie. I'd love to see it (aside from looking cool, I love Rhys Ifans as an actor), but it isn't playing anywhere near me. After all, Shakespeare (the REAL author, no less) would always play fast and loose with the history in order to put up a good show. So, I really don't care that the movie is most certainly inaccurate--as long as it is good, I'll be happy.

Oh, and the reason Shakespeare and the historians of his day trashed Richard III and his character? Um, because the Queen's grandfather was the one who took the throne from him, and it all fit in nice with Tudor propaganda. Richard III no doubt did a lot of ruthless things and, though we still can't know absolutely for sure, probably had his nephews done away with. He wasn't a hunchback, though, and he wasn't a monster. The Woodvilles planned his ouster and murder from the moment his brother died, and he pretty much had to take the throne to save his own skin--whether or not he would have been ambitious enough to grab for the throne even if he was perfectly safe.

I back all of this up with two advanced degrees in Shakespeare and Renaissance Lit. One in acting, one in actual lit.

 

[AZZenny]

Good on you, Stout! I am purely a history hobbyist (except the poetry, that I've studied formally).

Oh, I know that historians now realize Richard was not an evil hunchback, and was in some ways a very progressive king, but the common/popular view still mainly follows Will's play.

Have you read Sharon Kay Penman's Sunne In Splendor ?An impeccably researched, magnificently written novel of Richard's life -- a sympathetic tragedy. That's what I'd call 'Anonymous' -- not 'woe is me' about deVere -- but a sympathetic tragedy, colorfully drawn. I suspect you'll like it. Rhys Ifan is exceptional.

 

[Stout]

Good on you, Stout! I am purely a history hobbyist (except the poetry, that I've studied formally).

Oh, I know that historians now realize Richard was not an evil hunchback, and was in some ways a very progressive king, but the common/popular view still mainly follows Will's play.

Have you read Sharon Kay Penman's Sunne In Splendor ?An impeccably researched, magnificently written novel of Richard's life -- a sympathetic tragedy. That's what I'd call 'Anonymous' -- not 'woe is me' about deVere -- but a sympathetic tragedy, colorfully drawn. I suspect you'll like it. Rhys Ifan is exceptional.

Yeah, I think that was an excellent novel. I want to re-read it, but I lent it to my cousin who lives in Illinois, and I don't know if I'll ever see it again

I've actually written my own version of Richard III--blank verse, iambic pentameter. I did my best to follow historical fact, although I took some poetic license with his relationship with his niece Elizabeth (well, maybe not too much). History tells us that they very well could have had a romantic fling. I used that to my advantage.

Like I said, I really want to see Anonymous, and it isn't anywhere near me

 

[BigRedRage]

wow, already bored.

 

[AZZenny]

There's a beheading, blackmail, a couple stabbings, incest, murder, arson... typical guy-flick stuff.

 

[BigRedRage]

see if you said that id think awesome, instead it was 5 7 paragraph posts that made me sleep!

 

[Rivercard]

There's a beheading, blackmail, a couple stabbings, incest, murder, arson... typical guy-flick stuff.

But it's only rated PG-13. No gay kissing I take it?

 

[schutd]

Wow. What an amazing 2 hours...

 

[Stout]

It was an excellent movie, a really enjoyable movie...of fiction. And there's nothing wrong with that. Well, except for the fact that so many prominent Shakespeareans, like Jacobi, can be such idiots about it.

 

[Gaddabout]

 

[AZZenny]

From today's news, re: our discussion of Richard III

Plenty of unsubstantiated rumors about Richard's body popped up in later centuries, including one myth that his bones were dug up and thrown in a river, and another claim that his coffin was used as a horse-trough. In fact, archaeologists have now found a skeleton in the church with battle wounds and a distinctive curved spine that matches historical descriptions of the lost king.