Amanda Molitor ’14
Director Roland Emmerich’s latest film Anonymous addresses the Shakespeare authorship question literary experts have been disputing for centuries. Skeptics say that there is no proof that Shakespeare wrote the 37 plays and 154 sonnets, but if not him, who? Anonymous, though containing aspects of fiction, explores the theory that Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, was the true author of the Shakespeare’s works.
In the movie, de Vere, played by Rhys Ifans, is a passionate and talented writer who believes he can change the world with his words. Although he writes many plays and poems, he never dares have them performed or published for political reasons. He allows actor William Shakespeare, an illiterate, womanizing drunk played by Rafe Spall, to take credit for his plays so they can be performed without people knowing the true author. All of this is happening in the midst of the scandals of the Tudor Royal Court, the ploys of the power hungry nobles, and the Essex Rebellion against Queen Elizabeth I, played by Vanessa Redgrave.
Anonymous received mixed reviews from the critics, but was mostly criticized for being confusing, due in part to the flashbacks within flashbacks and numerous characters. Emily Rhodes ’14 liked the flashback style of the movie because it made her “think deeper and ask questions.” She said, “I thought the movie was very artfully made, in that it strung together different viewpoints, characters, and time periods. As you learned more about the history, the different points of view came together to form a clear picture of Shakespeare.”
The movie also received reviews saying that many historical facts in the movie were less than accurate. A.O. Scott of The New York Times said, “As a work of serious history, it is beyond useless.” For example, some say the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship is implausible because Edward de Vere died before many of Shakespeare’s plays were written. David Denby of The New Yorker criticized the movie on this issue: “The Oxford theory is ridiculous, yet the filmmakers go all the way with it, producing endless scenes of indecipherable court intrigue in dark, smoky rooms, and a fashion show of ruffs, farthingales, and halberds. The more far-fetched the idea, it seems, the more strenuous the effort to pass it off as authentic.” Although some historical aspects of the movie may not have been correct, the movie was never referred to as a non-fiction piece, only as a “political thriller.”
“I thought it was a very interesting theory on the history on how these plays and sonnets came to be, and it was interestingly combined with the monarchy and the secrets within,” said Deirdre Meaney ’14.
John Dilworth, member of the English Department, said, “I probably won’t see it in theatres, but I will at some point. I’ll see it with an open mind.”
Chris McCreary, also a member of the English Department, was more adamant about his thoughts on the movie. He said, “No [I will not see it] because I heard it was neither scary nor interesting…I think it looks horrible and the reviews are bad.”
Many people watching Anonymous for the first time have only known Shakespeare as the true author of his famous plays and sonnets, as this is what is taught in schools and what most people generally accept. “I liked that [Anonymous] gave me a whole new perspective on Shakespeare,” said Connie Maltby ’14. “I’ve been so used to his work that getting a new point of view made it more interesting.” Maltby would recommend the movie to students learning about Shakespeare because “they know so much about Shakespeare. It shakes up what they think is right.”