Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

Anonymous (2011)

Director: Roland Emmerich

Time Out rating

Average user rating

76 reviews

Movie review

From Time Out London

Gadzooks! Roland Emmerich, the master of multiplex mayhem, takes time out from destroying the world to concoct this delirious historical romp which suggests that Shakespeare’s plays were not the product of a failed actor from the West Midlands, but sprang from the mind of rebellious aristocrat, the Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans). Keen insight and rapier-like subtlety are not Emmerich’s strong suits, so instead he has chosen the path of pure excess: bodices are ripped, swords unsheathed, moustachioes waxed, pantaloons tightened and scenery chewed; every villain wears a dastardly leer and every hero a proud glint.

But ‘Anonymous’ is not simply slapstick and silliness: John Orloff’s meaty script handles the central art versus politics debate in broad but convincing terms, and his placing of Shakespeare’s texts in a contemporary political context lends the fiery on-stage scenes within the newly built Globe theatre a genuine charge. The cast is strong, and while shameless hams like Rafe Spall as boozy, womanising gadabout Will Shakespeare and Edward Hogg as hunched, Richard III-alike Robert Cecil tend to steal the show, there are moments of subtlety, with the mother-daughter team of Joely Richardson and Vanessa Redgrave bringing unexpected pathos to their roles as Queen Bess. But the most pleasing aspect of ‘Anonymous’ is its sheer sense of fun. Think of it as a high-end Christmas panto, as a red-faced, enthusiastic cast are put through the paces by their barking, domineering director. Louder, faster, bigger, more!

Author: Tom Huddleston

Time Out London Issue 2149: Oct 27 – Nov 2, 2011

Email Tweet Share

User reviews of this film

JOHN said...

Posted on May 07 2012 19:24 Needs watching twice to follow the time shifts

Report as inappropriate
robert dean, jr. said...

Posted on Mar 12 2012 03:08 glorious genius! bravo! to roland emmerich! this film is accurate! i am sick and tired of reading the reviews of stupid professors and "historians" who are offended by this movie! edward de vere was one of the greatest human beings to ever walk this earth! can you possible imagine the pain of never being given the credit for these plays? this film is a work of genius. genius lauds genius!

Report as inappropriate
John Cooper said...

Posted on Mar 06 2012 21:24 Yes, three stars is rather generous for this confusing
drama, which tries to take Shakespeare's maxim,
good theatre does not depend on historical accuracy
and apply the same to the film medium . . . Thus
we have two hours of glaring anachronisms as we see
the Shakespeare canon being thrown into the cinematic
blender and given a good whisking. I'm not an Oxford
don, but I know enough about Shakespeare and his
times to know that this particular tale is extremely far--fetched .. The screenplay uses complexity to mask
its anarchronisms, . .almost every scene is dimly lit .
( yes we know they only had candles in the sixteeth century) William Shakespeare, it seems, was a congenital idiot .who managed to fool the whole of
Elizabethan London into thinking he was a Renaissance
genius .. . . However, the film has its moments, and
although not a patch on Shakespeare in Love in
terms of artistic acomplishment,, it attempts at least to
engage the critical faculties . . . .

Report as inappropriate
Khaled Shafeik said...

Posted on Jan 31 2012 10:24 Spectacular acting, outstanding costumes and visual effects, extraordinary plot...That movie altered my opinion of disaster films director Roland Emmerich.However, I didn't like the soundtrack very much. I think if it had been done by James Newton Howard or Hanz Zimmer or even Vangelis, it would've been unforgetable. I really think Anonymous should grap a dozen academy awards including best picture, visual effects and actor for a leading role for Rhys Ifans.

Report as inappropriate
Donny Duke said...

Posted on Jan 26 2012 05:37 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.

Report as inappropriate
stevhors said...

Posted on Jan 24 2012 00:00 Oh dear, I thought I knew a bit of Tudor history but the first 30 mins of this film are so confusing with flash backs and flash forwards I was totally lost in the incestuous plot, writing this 2 hours later I'm still not sure who was related to who...with better screenwriting this would have been a much better film; evocation of Tudor London was well done and really well acted, but not worth the 3 stars from Timeout I think

Report as inappropriate
Gort said...

Posted on Jan 22 2012 22:39 This movie is like that beginning of "Amadeus" when Salieri is walking all excited in that Viennese hall filled with people because he knows Mozart is one of them. "This man had written his first concerto at the age of 4... his first symphony at 7, a full-scale opera at 12!" he keeps telling himself wondering the halls expecting Mozart to be this serious, profound young man but then when he meets him he gets slapped down with "That was Mozart! That giggling, dirty creature I'd just seen crawling on the floor." and Forman too had to battle with people who were convinced that Mozart was composing on white pedestal surrounded with golden bars and elephant tusks.
Well this move is told from that point of view. Shakespeare's plays must have been written by a distinguished person in some sort of laboratory who was joining power of the universe with derogative human nature in order to directly shape the world.
But really? Shakespeare was not a walking institution. He probably didn't care about calligraphy or even the design of his autograph, he was more concerned about entertaining the people.
OK but what about the rest of it? It was an OK historical drama with some interesting scenes but kind of stillborn on account that it was built on this falsehood and I expected to enjoy the movie for the sheer of it but it wasn't much possible since it's authors are so infatuated with this belief that Shakespeare was a fraud. Even Derek Jacobi himself believes this.

Report as inappropriate
Gwyn said...

Posted on Nov 17 2011 14:56 I thought it was absolutely FAB! Had to see it a second time.........And if it was still on in Manchester I'd go and see it again! ..............Twice.

Report as inappropriate
Dan said...

Posted on Nov 15 2011 02:06 No one wants to be thought of as mentally ill, so better agree with this rhetorical rape:
"No true scholars or Universities believe this sordid , incestuous theory , why should anyone else? Looney was indeed aptly named. Did you know this kind of thinking is actually recognized as a mental illness? The movie will fail, as it deserves to."

Report as inappropriate
Dan said...

Posted on Nov 15 2011 00:29 I have been in creative work for 15 years in corporate America and know for a fact that most anyone famous for any kind of written art is a fraud, it’s human nature. There are those who do focus on doing great things and those who take credit. It’s not conspiracy theory; it’s a matter of how people choose to spend their time and the ethics from which they were raised. Is it possible or even likely that Shake spear and most other people in history were frauds? ..definitely possible and likely. This is not interesting, shocking or outrageous, its common sense. However, all other historical artist who are still famous today deserve the same scrutiny. Hopefully, with the digital age and improved communication mechanisms much of this fraud and inconsistent historical records will surface further. Shakespeare didn’t have a computerized copyright database to register with, and even that doesn’t guarantee credit to the real originator. History records should never be taken literally, but rather a way to gain an general understanding about the what life might have been like.
This movie had some of the best technical’s of any historical fiction ever seen. The queen had had bad teeth, and all that good stuff. Usually block buster directors produce garbage technical’s, people holding weapons wrong, stuff like that. The film was edited in virtually random time-line blips so 90% of viewers only understood about half of this movie. A poor communication technique seen in film-nore and Quentin Tarantino movies. Grab some film editing software and reorganize the scenes into chronological order and this will be a great film. In its current state, you will have to watch it about 5 times and draw a sequence diagram before you will fully understand the story line.

Report as inappropriate
Rich said...

Posted on Nov 13 2011 16:32 The visual effects of period London are simply gorgeous. We can call it anti-Shakespeare in love. The film is highly entertaining, the plot is intriguing and presents an interesting argument.

Report as inappropriate
Tate L said...

Posted on Nov 12 2011 19:16 The film was written beautifully, and I enjoyed every moment of it. I knew there were going to be negative reviews, but I think some people need to look past all the authorship debate and enjoy the film for what it is. Whatever you think about Shakespeare, you can respect a great film.

Report as inappropriate
Rerevisionist said...

Posted on Nov 12 2011 16:08 So far as I know this is the first film to treat de Vere as 'Shakespeare' - certainly the first with full scale VFX - despite the disclaimer that it's 'entirely a work of fiction...' maybe reinforced by Sony's make.believe tag. Derek Jacobi (modern day theatre orator, shown linking to the past) and Mark Rylance (plays an Elizabethan leading actor) are known to me as Oxfordians. I don't know about the Redgrave mother and daughter (both playing Elizabeth), or Rhys Ifans (de Vere), though presumably they may have some sympathy with the idea.
This film presents some known aspects of de Vere's life, and weaves a plot from them, though much of the detail is conjectural. For example, de Vere was known to have killed a man lurking behind the arras - this film uses the incident to force a marriage on de Vere. Another example is a final scene showing Ben Jonson (played by Sebastian Armesto) recovering leather-bound parchment MSs from a metal trunk after they survived the fire of 1613 that burned down The Globe. There is little real evidence (as far as I know) for either joint event, but in each case two puzzles are combined in one filmic solution.
Burford, the writer and speaker now renamed Beauclerk, is an advocate of the Elizabeth/ de Vere incest theory - a theory which has caused a serious rift in the Oxfordian movement. Perhaps I won't give the detail here. John Orloff is credited with the script, but I don't remember any historical or literary advisors in the credit list.
Since 54 years of de Vere's life have to be encompassed, the casting people picked two actors of different ages for several of the parts. I'm tempted to say the sets of halves didn't look very similar - but then, perhaps many people don't resemble their younger selves very closely. William Cecil (I think I'm right in saying) is shown as so old that the make up and prosthetic people only needed to work on actor.
'Anonymous' is worth watching for its technical skill, not just because it's pathbreaking as a piece of 'revisionism'.
I'll just comment on a few aspects---
** The Spanish Armada, part of the Spanish War, occurred when de Vere was about 38. This war had an impoverishing effect on Britain (and no doubt Spain). Many parts of Britain had famine. If de Vere wrote the plays, there was a good deal of patriotic material aimed against Spain. There's a very good essay by Capt. Ward on this subject, which the 'merrie England' types seem not to know of. When the Armada failed, these propagandist plays ceased.
** De Vere is believed to have been paid by Elizabeth, essentially as a propagandist; two plays per year being required. At least this story was reported by one of the early writers on Shakespeare as being current in the writer's time.
** The name 'William Shakespeare' is attributed to a Warwickshire travelling player type, just as in the traditional version. In the film, he's shown as unable to write, and to spontaneously giving his name as author of Henry V, since Ben Jonson was unwilling to come forward. The usual Oxfordian view is that the name was made up, both 'Will' and 'Shakespeare' being in some sense synonymous with poetry. Under this version, Shaxper, who lived in Stratford-on-Avon, and was helpfully illiterate, was located as a substitute for de Vere, who lived in Starford, East London. Earls were not supposed to stoop to writing. And Christopher Sly was de Vere's commentary.
** It would not surprise me if Shaxper was some sort of war profiteer in food; hence the sack of grain and his expensive monument. Maybe.
** The film is a bit constricted - these events occurred when the entire world was opening, after Columbus's 1493 return, fifty years before de Vere's birth. Colonisation of the USA was beginning. Several empires were starting (including Russia's). The Italian Renaissance was long established. There were wars throughout Europe; with more to follow. De Vere's education (his tutors are faithfully listed in the film) included what are now called 'the classics'. Not much of this is really shown or implied in the film - Cecil isn't shown with his maps and information about ships, Walsingham isn't shown spying. De Vere's sporting prowess is hinted at only through fencing. Nor is de Vere shown at Cambridge, or with lawyers, or at war, or with his companies of actors. Of course all these things would be difficult to film!
** Many events which were recent at the time of 'Shakespeare' aren't put into the film - possibly there simply wasn't time. Henry VIII gets a few mentions as Elizabeth's father, but his wives aren't mentioned. Nor is Henry VII, against whom de Vere had a special animus. There's no mention of the Dissolution of the Monasteries.
** De Vere's wealth, and its disappearance, is part of the de Vere life and legend. Much seems to have vanished during his minority, and much when he was touring Europe. I've never seen a convincing explanation of the underlying economic forces which one assumes underpinned the transfer of wealth - mostly (I think) ownership of land and property, but also some Tudor monopolies (as per the 'tin letters'). It's possible the introduction of interest, made legal by Henry VIII, had something to do with it.
** Financing: the list of implied 'angels' does NOT include the BBC. The BBC gets a guaranteed few billion a year from the British public, and likes to use this financial muscle in assorted ways never intended by the founders. Perhaps it's unnecessary to say that a project like this - and in fact all the plays need a serious revisonist treatment - received no BBC funding; only propaganda and low-grade material gets their money.

Report as inappropriate
Tom Larson said...

Posted on Nov 11 2011 20:18 This movie was very entertaining! The story seemed off in some places but the scenes of London and the Glober Theater were fantastic! And how Roland portrayed Shakespeare was brilliant!

Report as inappropriate
liked it said...

Posted on Nov 07 2011 22:25 I liked this a lot - fantastic sweeping scenes of frozen thames and Elizabethan London, great wigs! Interesting cast - handsome Rhys Ifans, ancient David Thewlis. I came away thinking I wasn't sure about it, because for every incredible scene, there seemed to be another daft badly-acted one - but actually the incredible scenes have stayed with me and the daft ones haven't. Regardless of historical inaccuracies, this was a gorgeous-looking, sometimes brilliantly acted film.

Report as inappropriate