Cannes Film Festival 2013

Review: Roland Emmerich's 'Anonymous' is just plain silly

Vanessa Redgrave's performance survives the soap opera

  • Critic's Rating C-
  • Readers' Rating n/a
<p>Vanessa Redgrave as Queen Elizabeth I in Roland Emmerich's "Anonymous."</p>

Vanessa Redgrave as Queen Elizabeth I in Roland Emmerich's "Anonymous."

Credit: Sony Pictures

Are you a fan of Toronto Film Festival?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

Film festivals are always filled with "passion projects."  Films that directors, producers or screenwriters have spent years or even decades trying to get made.  This year's festival season has more then recent memory including Glenn Close scripted "Albert Nobbs" and David Cronenberg's "A Dangerous Method" which playwright Christopher Hampton has been trying to get made for over 15 years.  A more peculiar entry to that club debuted this afternoon at the 2011 Toronto International Film Festival in the Roland Emmerich revisionist thriller "Anonymous."

A curious detour from his usual end of the world genre flicks, Emmerich has tried to get the Elizabethan era period piece made since at least 2006.  As he cobbled up enough financing for it he ended up continuing his blockbuster run with "The Day After Tomorrow," "10,000 B.C." and "2012."  Many critics or moviegoers may wince at the idea of Emmerich fashioning a tale centered around the creation of Shakespeare's greatest works (subtly has hardly been his strong suit), but it soon becomes apparent he's not the problem with the picture nor why it took so long to get produced.  Simply, the screenplay by John Orloff centers on such a ridiculous scenario that no performance or direction can save it from the whole concept being just plain silly.  

"Anonymous" takes the conceit that Shakespeare never wrote his famous plays, but instead was the frontman for Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, played by an almost unrecognizable Rhys Ifans. The artistically inclined De Vere, it seems, has been blackmailed by the infamous William Cecil (David Thewlis) advisor to Queen Elizabeth (Vanessa Redgrave) and also his father-in-law, from ever putting his name on his works or writing in public (Cecil believes theater is a sin in the eyes of god).  Itching for the world to hear his work, de Vere approaches middlebrow playwright Ben Foster (relative newcomer Sebastian Armesto) be the "name" on his plays (plus he gets paid for it).  At least that's the plan until the charismatic and overbearing actor William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) decides to steal the credit (although, to be fair, Foster was hardly enthusiastic about the "job").  As "Shakespeare" becomes more popular over the years, de Vere is able to enjoy his success as his own.  Unfortunately, Orloff has concocted a grand and completely unbelievable conspiracy that ties in de Vere, Cecil, Cecil's hunchback heir Robert (Edward Hogg ready to race up and ring Notre Dame's bells), the Earl of Essex (Sam Reid), the Earl of Southhampton (Xavier Samuel) and a long lost romance centered around the Queen.  

Want More...

Toronto Film Festival?
  • Toronto_at_night_article_story_main_thumbnail
    Check out everything there is including photos, reviews, videos.
In theory, Emmerich and Orloff could have fashioned an entertaining thriller, but within 20 minutes the entire picture's storyline has become completely implausible.  Shakespeare is played as such a dufus, such a braggart, such a fool, such a 16th century frat boy that it's impossible that anyone would ever believe he could write a letter let alone pen some of the greatest tomes in the English language.  It's simply ludicrous and makes the entire movie mostly a joke.  And I won't spoil it here, but an unnecessary "revelation" to de Vere at the end of the picture is stunningly even more ridiculous. 

Among the actors, Ifans does his best to give de Vere a soul, but most of the ensemble can't elevate the melodramatic nature of the material.  The only one who escapes with her dignity completely intact is Redgrave.  We've seen a lot of different version of the Virgin Queen over the past 20 years on screen and on television.  From Cate Blanchett in both "Elizabeth" features to Judi Dench's Oscar winning cameo in "Shakespeare in Love" to Helen Mirren's calculating queen in the HBO mini-series "Queen Elizabeth I," but Redgrave give us something else entirely.  Her Elizabeth, in the final years of her life, is slowly losing her mind as dementia creeps in.  One moment she's aware of both Cecils devious scheming and another she's bordering on insanity.  It's a finely nuanced performance that only helps to put the spotlight on just how obvious and bombastic the rest of the picture is.

On one last positive note, Emmerich and his crew (including notable costumes by Lisy Christl) make the approximately $30 million picture look like it cost closer to $100 million.  And yes, that's a compliment of some sort.

"Anonymous" opens nationwide on Oct. 28.  
 

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    Dryden

    Wait, what? Why would they go in such a ludicrous direction when there is already a fascinating real life conspiracy about Shakespeare being a front for Marlowe: http://www.salon.com/entertainment/feature/2002/03/02/shakespeare

    September 11, 2011 at 10:33PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Anne

    Glad the authorship question is getting the big screen treatment. It's just too bad they went with the Oxfordian theory, as the Baconian theory has a TON more credible proof and logic behind it - not the least of which is the existence of Bacon's Promus, which contained tons of lines from Shakespeare's plays many years before the plays premiered. You can read more about it here:
    http://www.sirbacon.org/links/evidence.htm

    September 12, 2011 at 2:41PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      nic919 I agree that Francis Bacon is more plausible, especially as he is not dead for the last plays. But having seen the movie, there are so many ridiculous things happening that anyone with a smidgen of Shakespeare or Elizbethan knowledge will dismiss this movie and the idea that Shakespeare did not write any of his plays. The costumes are pretty and if one takes the movies as happening in an alternative universe, then the acting is pretty decent too, but as a justification for Oxford writing the plays, it fails entirely.

      September 18, 2011 at 9:23AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Matt

    I never thought Shakespeare adaptations were ever very good. I had heard some Oscar buzz about Anonymous earlier in the year, but clearly it has faded! www.mattawards.com

    September 12, 2011 at 3:11PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    SteveXS

    It's not ludicrous to ask whether Will Shakespeare was the author of the plays. There is a tremendous body of scholarship arguing that they were written by Edward de Vere. Whether true or not, it's a fascinating subject for a movie that will popularize the debate.

    September 14, 2011 at 2:22PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Stephen

    It sounds like the author if this article couldn't give a fair shake to the movie because of his own personal agenda. So much for an unbiased account. I wonder what he thought of Amadeus or Shakespeare in Love - equally "silly" in the eyes of the jaded historian, but certainly didn't attract the venom that this story does. Ah well. Then again, perhaps the critic doth protest too much....

    September 16, 2011 at 11:44PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      nic919 Having seen the movie, the silly part has more to do with the massive liberties taken with regard to actual history than with the Oxford is Shakespeare theory. That said, they mount the plays out of order and disregard that Macbeth is a later play and makes references to things after his death. They also make a big deal that Oxford publishing poetry would be an embarrassment when in reality he had in fact done that. If the movie wanted to push this theory, they should have gone with more than Oxford is an aristocrat and Shakespeare is not and that's why he did not write the plays. But that really is not the most ridiculous part of this film. That said, it was very pretty and the acting was for the most part good. The worst part really was the screenplay.

      September 18, 2011 at 9:33AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Stephen Its a movie, Nic. It's not the history channel, you understand that, right? (Side note, you also understand that on one knows the order of the plays, right??) You are also incorrect about Macbeth, but that's another story...

      September 19, 2011 at 9:39AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    gmkuhn

    For good recent scholarship, see John Michell's "Who Wrote Shakespeare". His best guess is a scriptorium funded at least in part by lawyer, scholar and educational reformer Francis Bacon.

    October 20, 2011 at 4:50PM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on Awards Campaign

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web