Film
What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases
Bookmark this page
On the set of Roland Emmerich's 'Anonymous'
Only the director of ‘Independence Day’ could treat the life of Shakespeare with the same abandon with which he blows up entire cities on screen. Mark Salisbury meets Roland Emmerich on the set of his new film, ‘Anonymous’
Roland Emmerich is best known for blowing stuff up in spectacular ways. From ‘Independence Day’ to ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ to, most recently, ‘2012’, the 54-year-old, Stuttgart-born director has indulged his passion for Hollywood disaster movies by leaving no iconic building or landmark standing in his pursuit of a CGI-enhanced money shot. And yet, for his latest, ‘Anonymous’, currently shooting at Babelsberg Studios in Berlin – where Fritz Lang directed ‘Metropolis’ – the only thing Emmerich is exploding is the myth of William Shakespeare.
While the Shakespeare authorship question – did the Bard really write the 38 plays and more than 150 sonnets attributed to him? – has long been a contentious topic, ‘Anonymous’ isn’t a literary mystery. ‘This film is not about who wrote the plays,’ insists writer John Orloff (‘A Mighty Heart’) who originally penned the script in 1998 and has been developing it with Emmerich for the last nine years. ‘It’s a drama. It’s about art and politics, and it’s about the pen being mightier than the sword.’ Even so, Orloff’s script borrows the theory that Edward de Vere (Rhys Ifans), Earl of Oxford and a member of Elizabeth I’s Court, was the author, with Shakespeare presented as an actor who, according to Rafe Spall who plays him, ‘wins the lottery, really’.
Emmerich confesses to knowing little about Elizabethan England or the authorship question when he read Orloff’s screenplay, then entitled ‘Soul of the Age’, which, its writer says, was much more about ‘art and censorship and being a writer’. But after several years’ research, Emmerich was steeped in all the various theories and keen to integrate the period’s political intrigue, as well as some salacious speculation. ‘At the beginning it was a little bit too close to “Amadeus” for me, about genius and jealousy,’ explains Emmerich during lunch. ‘We talked a lot and discovered this movie could be about the most important thing at that time – who will succeed Elizabeth? There were a lot of provocative ideas, which I liked. I said, “Look, if we provoke, let’s provoke all the way.”’
And so ‘Anonymous’ posits the idea that Oxford was not only the author known as William Shakespeare but the illegitimate son of Elizabeth. Moreover, the pair had an incestuous relationship that produced a son, the Earl of Southampton (Xavier Samuel). ‘When Shakespeare wrote “Henry V”, he made things up and we’re making things up too,’ says Emmerich. Orloff was, at first, taken aback by his director’s suggestion, though admits it makes for great drama. ‘I have done a lot of non-fiction-based movies and there is a point where you have to go with the emotional truth, not the literal truth, because the drama is the primary concern.’
Is Emmerich expecting any adverse reaction from the British media? ‘Absolutely,’ he says. ‘I’m looking forward to it. It’s quite interesting how emotional people get when it comes to this subject. What we’re doing in this movie is very controversial.’
There’s no doubt ‘Anonymous’ marks a change of pace for Emmerich. But after earning many millions of dollars for Sony – who are backing this to the tune of $30 million – he’s earned the right to direct something different. Emmerich insists he’s making the movie he wants, without compromise, and so there are no Americans playing English in his cast, which features such venerable actors as Derek Jacobi, David Thewlis and Mark Rylance, as well as mother and daughter Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson as Elizabeth at different ages.
Nevertheless, ‘Anonymous’ promises to be a period movie unlike any other, with Emmerich bringing a blockbuster visual approach to Elizabethan London. Having decided not to film in England due to a lack of period locations, Emmerich has called on his experience with effects to bring about his vision, which includes swirling ‘helicopter shots’ over a CGI London, and filming his actors mainly on green-screen sets and adding entire sets or partial backgrounds in post. Not everything is digital: production designer Sebastian Krawinkel (‘Inglourious Basterds’) has constructed a full-size replica of the Rose Theatre which will also serve as the Globe Theatre. ‘I want to see this town, I want to see wide shots, I don’t only want to shoot what’s there because nothing is,’ says Emmerich. ‘I approach it like my other movies where nothing is there: how can we create it?’
One scene Emmerich is proud of is a helicopter shot of Elizabeth’s funeral procession as it travels along a frozen River Thames which, judging by the early images shown to Time Out, looks impressive, even if it’s not historically accurate. ‘It was born out of the fact that at one point in the story everything becomes really ice cold emotionally,’ he explains. ‘At one point I had this idea, why don’t we from a certain point on have everything frozen and snowy, and the funeral was part of that sequence. We said, “Why do we have to be historically accurate in something like that?” because it conveys what we’re trying to accomplish. It’s this frozen feeling, a person has lost everything.’
‘Anonymous’ opens next year.
Author: Mark Salisbury
User comments on this story
-
- Donny Duke said...
- It is a good movie Helen, but not a great one, and no it didn’t get a fair shake, and Time will probably give it a better one, as a movie that is. Its contention (and yours too from the very little I’ve read of your book), is that another person, one with a better education and background, wrote the works attributed to Shakespeare. But I would ask you: does literary genius necessarily come from one’s education and background? Might there be something in the nature of a person that gives him that talent, something innate, and if such ability is there, perhaps even a little education and exposure to what I might call the proper circles would be enough to provide the basis for bringing that bright seed to full flower? Might also there be in humanity, or something we can gain access to, especially if we have the genius, a creative realm where reside the perfect (or exact) forms of whatever art it is our talent to express? Some Romantic poets looked towards that. (Where in Coleridge does Kubla Khan come from?) If there is such genius innate in a person and such a creative realm – creative reflex is more like it –, then a plebian such as Shakespeare might very well be the poet of such inspired poetry. At any rate, it’s my contention that who is not really the point: how is, but neither the movie nor contemporary literary criticism answer that or even seem interested in the question. Allow me to put the question in more practical terms: What is inspiration, and more importantly to human culture and its climb to more humane and more beautiful heights, how do you access it? Pray tell please. Posted on Jan 31 2012 04:10
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Helen Heightsman Gordon said...
-
The movie "Anonymous" is great entertainment and gives a more accurate picture of Elizabethan England than such frothy far as "Shakespeare in Love." Academics like James Shapiro launched an attack on the film before they had seen it. This sabotage was reflected in many superficial reviews and may have influenced attendance at theaters. But I predict that when it comes out on DVD, it will be enjoyed as the drama it is, and people will praise it to their friends.
Helen Heightsman Gordon, M.A., Ed.D., author of the book THE SECRET LOVE STORY IN SHAKESPEARE'S SONNETS [2008] Posted on Jan 30 2012 20:34 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Donny Duke said...
- The real question, as I allow some high note of that poetry to give me some a glimpse of the revealing power of language, its power to show me human, show me life, is where did it come from, I mean in the poet? Can we say that whoever wrote it was inspired? What, really then, does that mean? Does it mean that his education and knowledge reached such a pitch swirling around inside him that it poured out of him without so much as a need to sit and think it up? Or does is mean more than that, that more than the poet and all his sum of knowledge and experience came upon him, what has been called by less modern minds the muse of poetry? With that we beg more questions of course, but we begin to climb and in climbing rise. Posted on Jan 26 2012 14:42
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Mark Johnson said...
- The movie was a complete flop. It will not be the Oscar winner predicted by Oxfordians, nor will it be the game-changer so many Oxfordians envisioned. I'd be interested in hearing their thoughts on why the movie fared so poorly. Posted on Jan 26 2012 13:47
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Donny Duke said...
-
Anonymous
Maybe Now
I hardly explain the doors
You see we’re engaged in.
I shudder to think
Plebian;
No my lord.
Wield captain
You know
David.
On the count of three
They let him,
The new earl
And his bank rank.
You can’t reach them
By Winfield
Or Snyder
Poet.
To get in
You listen.
You hold the music.
You must follow –
Son of a bitch! –
(You know it,
Come on)
Shakespeare. Posted on Jan 26 2012 02:35 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Lancelot the Unrequited said...
- One would hope scholars of the Canon would be more humane, wise, and well-spoken. Contention is good, even a spice of "poison" -- "from a little poison comes physic" (AYLI) -- but the jejune flaming and ad hominems here are truly beneath us. Posted on Oct 28 2011 20:12
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Eric said...
- The movie looks great, and if you look at the official site, it has a lot of historical information backing their theory up. Posted on Oct 28 2011 16:13
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Lancelot the Unrequited said...
-
Gentlemen, gentlemen -- desist and abjure the felicity with which you contend your position. Argue rather both side contemporaneouly; that is, what are the implications of Oxfordian and Stratfordian perspectives? Be thou creative above all in extrapolating the consequences. There are more than two contending views. What are the implications of anyy and all.
YMHOS, etc... Posted on Oct 24 2011 20:51 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Needed a cuppa to read all this said...
- I would like to point out the following. In the posts on August 20th mention is made that Elizabeth executed for treason a half brother. This is refuted in a later post by William Ray saying that neither (formally acknowledged illegitimate son) Fitzroy or Edward VI were beheaded but died from consumption. This is correct. Who the poster is referring to is a man called: Sir John Perrot. The proof that he was Henry VIII's son is circumstantial yet consistent throughout his life. His mother was a Lady in Waiting to Catherine of Aragon. He carried a canopy for Elizabeth's coronation etc. Yet he was sentenced to death by Elizabeth for treason and was allegedly recorded as saying "God’s death! Will the Queen suffer her brother to be offered up a sacrifice to the envy of his frisking adversary?” The reason that he was in the Tower being determined action by his enemies at Court, using problems in Ireland to land him in trouble. He died of illness before being executed. But he was tried and condemned to death for Treason. Therefore from a perspective of an unofficially agreed son, the poster is correct. I will say I found an Oxfordian dismissing claims about circumstantial life evidence as a direct proof on identity ironic. Mind you I am unsure if William Ray knew about the Perrot question before sweepingly dismissing all the points raised in support of the Stratfordian argument. All of which were too brief to be properly referenced but have left me investigating some of them further. I will elaborate on the Perrot point for reference quickly here. Henry's sexual appetites were notorious and women were not in a strong position to refuse his advances. He had innumerable mistresses yet only one acknowledged illegitimate offspring, a son, Fitzroy who was acknowledged at an advantageous point for Henry. In addition to his legal children, there were many miscarriages, so he was fertile. The debate on unofficial offspring is quite contentious but this link with Perrot sprung from a widely acknowledged similarity between Henry and Perrot along with the his mother being a Lady in Waiting at Court, his early preferential treatment and title, and of course that very clear comment as noted above. If Perrot was a half brother, or even rumored to be at the time in the gossip circles, his fall from grace is significant and draws similarity to both De Vere and Essex. However she executed Mary Queen of Scots so by comparison, he probably didn't concern Elizabeth much. Posted on Oct 19 2011 17:10
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Mark Johnson said...
- Please feel free to provide me with your email. Posted on Oct 19 2011 15:31
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Shakespeare Curious said...
- Ah Mr Johnson! I would be most grateful if you're interested, in discussing with you an idea I have on this debate. It's an early stage thought, I admit. But I'm not wrong. I won't discuss it here but it is without doubt something that may interest you about Shakespeare and the Oxfordian question. I'm seeking people out who may be interested in discussing/debating my thoughts on this. It's a terrible imposition and I'm really unsure if you'd like to speak about it though! The one thing Stratfordians seem to lack is passion - which is the one thing Oxfordians have in abundance. If you are interested then just confirm it and I'll ask the site co-ordinator to forward my email to you at your convenience. Posted on Oct 18 2011 14:49
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Mark Johnson said...
- Roger: Far from treating me with any dignity, you have consistently impugned my motives and characterized me as some charlatan intent on tripping up Oxfordian beliefs with equivocation and legalistic tricks worthy of the Jesuits. For instance, at the Anonymous film site, you falsely accused me of attacking you [when I had actually complimented you] and then failed to apologize when I pointed this out. You also accused me of laying some Machiavelian trap for the unsuspecting poster, which I also pointed out, with no response from you. If that is your notion of dignity I'm happy not to be associated with it. I do note that your diatribe attacking me in this instance doesn't cite a single comment in this thread that supports your internet psychoanalysis of me. What you appear to be saying is that if I don't accept what Oxforidans say, yourself included, I must be someone "who prefers to listen to the sound" of my own voice. I don't know of "anything new of any consequence about the topic under consideration" that I have failed to understand or consider. Can you enlighten me as to what might you might have meant? As it appears at this point, you appear to be just one more person claiming some unspecified abuse and playing the victim card in order to avoid participating in anything other than your own echo chamber. I hope you enjoy that sort of thing. Posted on Oct 17 2011 14:32
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Bob Grumman said...
-
"Psi" is "not quite sure why any self respecting website would diminish its credibility as a public organ of civil conversation by not deleting the abusive hate speech of the ignorant Mr. Merrill." Might it not be that the site is not totalitarian and therefore believes in freedom of expression? I note, by the way, that Psi made no effort to refute Mr;. Merrill (whose first post on his view of Oxfrordianism as anti-semetic DOES seem to have been deleted, so I guess I'd better quickly copy his second post if I want to keep up with him, and I do, for the same reason I want to keep up with the idiocy of the Oxfordians).
Meanwhile, I note that Dr. Stritmatter continues to specialize in the main debating tactic of Oxfordianism, attacking his opponents for name-calling. Oxfordians know that the further they can get from having to deal with the facts against them, the better.
-- Posted on Oct 17 2011 11:21 - Report as inappropriate
-
- psi said...
-
William S writes: i think therefore conspiracy is the correct albeit charming definition."
Sir, I don't care what term you use. Your abusive and sarcastic tone marks you as the sort of debater who prefers semantics over substance, as someone more interested in labels than in facts or (above all) fact patterns. It's all very well and good to demonstrate in pubic your pronounced skill at deconstructing straw men who you made sure to mold two feet shorter than yourself. But in truth, it merely makes you in the final analysis look a lot more ridiculous than the people who read before writing and listened before broadcasting their prejudices over the internet. Way too go. This entire thread, from the first post, is poisoned by a kind of verbal violence that is the usual stock in trade of those defending a cliche that no longer retains much lustre. Kudos to Mr. Ray for resisting such bullying.
Roger Stritmatter
Associate Professor
Department of Humanities
Coppin State University Posted on Oct 17 2011 05:19 - Report as inappropriate
-
- psi said...
- I am not quite sure why any self respecting website would diminish its credibility as a public organ of civil conversation by not deleting the abusive hate speech of the ignorant Mr. Merrill. It truly is a shame that certain people feel the need to parade in public what amounts to evidence of a complete failure to bother oneself in the slightest regard with getting any thing right -- which seems to take a back seat in Mr. Merrell's ideology to whipping out a few "politically correct" slanders. As for Mr. Johnson, after all the sincere attempts of many persons, myself included, to treat you with some dignity, it is now obvious that you deserve none at all. You are obviously a person who prefers to listen to the sound of his own voice than he does come to understand anything new of any consequence about the topic under consideration. I hope you enjoy that sort of thing. Posted on Oct 17 2011 05:12
- Report as inappropriate
Top Stories
Ridley Scott interview
Director Ridley Scott tells Cath Clarke why he's making a science fiction comeback
Cannes Film Festival 2012: half-time report
Dave Calhoun reports on the hits, misses and a shocking new masterpiece from Michael Haneke
What do you think?
Post your comment now