Publications
Partners
What it's about:
Set in the political snakepit of Elizabethan England, the film blatantly questions the authorship of arguably the greatest writers in the English literary canon – William Shakespeare. Anonymous poses an alternative suggestion to who the author of the famous works could have been, focusing on a time when cloak-and-dagger political intrigue, illicit romances in the Royal Court and the schemes of greedy nobles hungry for the power of the throne were exposed in the most unlikely of places: the London stage.
What we thought:
Literature buffs will shrivel in disgust. Historians will writhe in agony, and countless others will be left befuddled by the sheer audacity of a film which so brazenly parades what seems to be a preposterous premise. And yet, there will be even more who might find this film strangely fascinating. Whether you're a sucker for a juicy conspiracy theory or a campaigner for historical accuracy – one has to admit that despite its many, many faults, Anonymous is a wickedly entertaining film.
Director Roland Emmerich –thus far only known for a slew of mediocre to middling films has gone all out to capture a lush and exciting Elizabethan period piece – with a twist. In this Tudor England, we are introduced to a world where there was no humble Stratfordian genius by the name of Shakespeare but rather an illiterate, self-absorbed actor who stumbles across the chance to claim the authorship of the true writer's plays.
The true writer in this postulation is none other than a nobleman Edward De Vere - the Earl of Oxford. Departing from the so-called Oxfordian (conspiracy) theory the film then accumulates with alarming speed a plot so thick with intrigue, scandal and schemes it's quite frankly hard to keep up.
Despite the over-the-top-ness of the whole production iit can be noted that the acting really isn't half bad. Rhys Ifans gives a thrilling performance as the mysterious Earl of Oxford, while Vanessa Redgrave's lecherous, tempestuous Queen Elizabeth I is as ludicrous as it is magnetic.
If you’re a Stratfordian purist or remotely English by birth – avoid Anonymnous at all costs. If you’re up to getting sucked into an absorbing if not thoroughly amusing Tudor conspiracy tale – do indulge.
Set in the political snakepit of Elizabethan England, the film blatantly questions the authorship of arguably the greatest writers in the English literary canon – William Shakespeare. Anonymous poses an alternative suggestion to who the author of the famous works could have been, focusing on a time when cloak-and-dagger political intrigue, illicit romances in the Royal Court and the schemes of greedy nobles hungry for the power of the throne were exposed in the most unlikely of places: the London stage.
What we thought:
Literature buffs will shrivel in disgust. Historians will writhe in agony, and countless others will be left befuddled by the sheer audacity of a film which so brazenly parades what seems to be a preposterous premise. And yet, there will be even more who might find this film strangely fascinating. Whether you're a sucker for a juicy conspiracy theory or a campaigner for historical accuracy – one has to admit that despite its many, many faults, Anonymous is a wickedly entertaining film.
Director Roland Emmerich –thus far only known for a slew of mediocre to middling films has gone all out to capture a lush and exciting Elizabethan period piece – with a twist. In this Tudor England, we are introduced to a world where there was no humble Stratfordian genius by the name of Shakespeare but rather an illiterate, self-absorbed actor who stumbles across the chance to claim the authorship of the true writer's plays.
The true writer in this postulation is none other than a nobleman Edward De Vere - the Earl of Oxford. Departing from the so-called Oxfordian (conspiracy) theory the film then accumulates with alarming speed a plot so thick with intrigue, scandal and schemes it's quite frankly hard to keep up.
Despite the over-the-top-ness of the whole production iit can be noted that the acting really isn't half bad. Rhys Ifans gives a thrilling performance as the mysterious Earl of Oxford, while Vanessa Redgrave's lecherous, tempestuous Queen Elizabeth I is as ludicrous as it is magnetic.
If you’re a Stratfordian purist or remotely English by birth – avoid Anonymnous at all costs. If you’re up to getting sucked into an absorbing if not thoroughly amusing Tudor conspiracy tale – do indulge.
