"Anonymous" (2011)

[rmichaelpyle]

I saw "Anonymous" (2011) a couple of days ago at the theater. This is a wonderful evocation of Elizabethan times about the possibility of the Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, having written Shakespeare's plays - or should I write (?) - Shakspere.

If you're not familiar with the politics of Elizabeth's day at all, or if you're just not familiar with the literature of Shakespeare and his time, you may possibly - remote possibility - have some trouble at a few moments following things. If you just want a whale of a good time, with gorgeous, gorgeous costuming and filmography - totally and utterly period - and a fine story attached - sit back and be marvelously entertained by this film. There are a couple of scenes that are sexual in nature and which could offend, so be aware, but these are not something that is exploited strictly for exploitation's sake.

Wonderfully evocative, great story, filmed in Germany for the most part, although some of it was filmed at Montacute House in Somerset, England, this will please any and all who love Elizabethan times. Vanessa Redgrave turns in a bravura performance as Elizabeth as an older queen; her daughter Joely Richardson is Elizabeth as a younger queen. They look so much alike it's amazing. Rhys Ifans plays Edward de Vere; Sebastian Armesto is Ben Jonson; Rafe Spall is William Shakespeare; David Thewlis is William Cecil.

Recommended

[Midge]

Thanks for the review, R. Michael. I saw Shakespeare in Love and was disappointed in it; this movie sounds a lot more interesting, not to mention historically authentic.

[rmichaelpyle]

Nov 14, 2011 15:28:48 GMT -6 Midge said:

Thanks for the review, R. Michael. I saw Shakespeare in Love and was disappointed in it; this movie sounds a lot more interesting, not to mention historically authentic.

Well, if you're looking for immaculate history, I'm afraid you'll have to turn your head away a couple of times. But the plausibility factor is very, very real. I'm reading Joseph Sobran's book Alias Shakespeare now, a book I've had since it was first published but have never read (shame on me!). It's about the facts for having Edward de Vere the genuine author of Shakespeare's plays. Even Orson Welles and Laurence Olivier, both of whom studied the subject in depth, thought the Earl of Oxford, de Vere, had to be the true author.

[Midge]

DeVere? Hmmm. It's funny that you should say that, R. Michael, because I was talking to a highly educated friend of mine last night about your movie review, and she sniffed, "There's not a shred of evidence that anyone but Shakespeare wrote those plays!"

If any Shakespearean movie were completely accurate from a historical point of view, it probably would be unwatchable. For one thing, we probably wouldn't be able to understand a word anyone said as (according to one of my college English instructors) Shakespearean English was not pronounced like modern British English. Because of this, some of the clever word plays and puns that would have convulsed the Groundlings go right over our heads.

[rmichaelpyle]

What's actually unfortunate, Midge, is that not only is there definitely a shred of evidence that Shakespeare didn't write all of his work, the evidence can indeed sometimes be DEFINITELY linked to more than one man!! Now, that's an impossibility, so the genuine problem is a fact of history: it sometimes gets out of place and time and can't be corroborated successfully by anyone for anything except the rumored past. "When the legend becomes fact - print the legend!"

We know for certain that John Fletcher collaborated with Shakespeare on "King Henry VIII". Phillip Massinger probably wrote a couple of Shakespeare's plays first before either Shakespeare - or someone - re-shaped them - or, as one scholar suggests - the other way around. Eric Sams is of the opinion that Shakespeare revised his own plays later: there are early versions of some of the plays which are far inferior to what ended up in the final folio edition. But: this is not a forum for the debate, so I'll shut my trap... Motormouth runneth on... That's something that could be understood in any generation of any English speaking country...

The movie's fun. When the movie's fun, enjoy the movie: not quite Edmund O'Brien at the end of "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence", but axiomatic enough...

[Midge]

That was interesting and informative, R. Michael, as well as being on topic since after all, we are discussing a movie about Shakespeare. I told my friend Margaret that Shakespeare must have had a limited view of the world as he hadn't traveled and wasn't well-educated, so how could he have known so much about history, geography and culture? She replied, "He read a lot."

I haven't seen The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence so *whoosh*, your Edmond O'Brien witticism went right over my head. However I can offer you the 25-cent courtesy laugh.

[dvdjunkie]

Beverly convinced me to go see this movie with her, and I am so glad that I went. The story is well-told, the acting is remarkable and I think I enjoyed a lot more than Beverly did.

Midge, I know you don't get out to the movies very often, but this film is definitely worth a special trip to see. I think you will be truly amazed at how much you will enjoy it.

I have also put this at the top of my "Must Have" list for DVD's and Blu-ray. That is how good it is.

[Midge]

This is one of the few movies that I would go see. I do get out once in a while, though, believe it or not. Last weekend a friend and I went to see Sutro: The Palace at Land's End. It's a documentary about the Sutro Baths, an extravagant glass-roofed structure built in the late 19th century which housed seven swimming pools and a museum, and which later became a skating rink. It burned down in 1966, but the ruins are still there and open to visitors.

Moderator's note: This thread had veered off topic, so I moved the rest of the posts to a new topic called "Jane Austen Movies." -- Midge