I've been watching the movie again because I finally gave in and purchased the DVD, chiefly because the price dropped low enough to signify its general unpopularity.
Actually, I adore this movie because of stunning CGI images such as the one posted here, showing the Tower of London as it probably appeared about 1600. Elizabethan London is re-created in the film in astonishing, realistic detail, and scenes of the Globe, old St. Paul's, old London Bridge, etc., are breathtaking.
There's one moment depicting a funeral procession on the frozen Thames that is so unexpected and so overwhelmingly beautiful that one feels that one suddenly has been transported four centuries back in time to fly above it in an Elizabethan helicopter.
I see these moments - including the wonderful costumes and sets - and shout "Yes!" I want more and more of such thrilling scenes, which seem to be the wonderful benefit of well-thought-out computer graphics.
Then there are the actors. Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance - who accept the notion that Edward de Vere was the true author of Shakespeare's plays - appear on screen to support that cause, and the producers convinced the likes of Vanessa Redgrave, Joely Richardson and David Thewlis to show up, too. Their performances are universally superb, and Redgrave is nothing short of eerie as Elizabeth I.
And then ... one considers John Orloff's script for this ridiculous, outrageously inaccurate fabrication and one tries desperately not to scream "No!" at the screen time and time again until practically hoarse.
Those familiar with Shakespeare, Jonson, Marlowe and their times almost certainly will join me in this utter despair, because even someone with a cursory knowledge of the Elizabethan era and its theatrical legacy can pick out one historical error and contrivance after another (just look at the Wikipedia page about this movie for a list of the avoidable mistakes and outright falsehoods).
This is stuff that director Roland Emmerich and Orloff on the DVD commentary brush off as dramatic and artistic license. At root, however, what they deliberately have tried to do is reshape Shakespeare in a way that Shakespeare himself did more innocently to Richard III, in that Shakespeare probably thought Richard really was a horrible villain. In contrast, Anonymous takes much more than dramatic license. It pretends to be merely raising a question about Shakespearean authorship, but delivers an unjustifiable historical wrecking job. In short, it pretends to know the answer to the question.
Sure, Shakespeare in Love played fast and loose with history, and made up stuff. And yet, it worked within the context of known facts, and portrayed those facts - for the most part - with tongue-in-cheek acknowledgment without pretending to present some "true story." Anonymous doesn't care about giving us facts; instead, it replaces known facts when it's more convenient to make up new ones to suit the movie's premise - and that premise is to claim that Shakespeare was a fraud - maybe even a murderer.
The most egregious example is the depiction in Anonymous of the death of Christopher Marlowe, about which much is known. Instead of being stabbed through the eye in a tavern in Deptford during a quarrel among known participants, Marlowe is shown having had his throat slit - perhaps by Shakespeare himself - on a London street. It's just unconscionable.
Sure, Shakespeare in Love played fast and loose with history, and made up stuff. And yet, it worked within the context of known facts, and portrayed those facts - for the most part - with tongue-in-cheek acknowledgment without pretending to present some "true story." Anonymous doesn't care about giving us facts; instead, it replaces known facts when it's more convenient to make up new ones to suit the movie's premise - and that premise is to claim that Shakespeare was a fraud - maybe even a murderer.
The most egregious example is the depiction in Anonymous of the death of Christopher Marlowe, about which much is known. Instead of being stabbed through the eye in a tavern in Deptford during a quarrel among known participants, Marlowe is shown having had his throat slit - perhaps by Shakespeare himself - on a London street. It's just unconscionable.
It's not my goal here to take on the deVere/Shakespeare controversy. I'll leave it to you to educate yourself if you're interested, and make your own decision. However, I've read a few too many "best" books championing de Vere, and remain unconvinced. What I'm comfortable in stating is that this movie's case for de Vere - if one can say that a case is presented at all - is the silliest of them all.
Those who don't read history probably will enjoy the movie a lot more, but they'll still be challenged to follow this convoluted, conjectural mess.
OK, I'm done. Whew. Wasn't that diatribe better than reading another one about you-know-who?
OK, I'm done. Whew. Wasn't that diatribe better than reading another one about you-know-who?
No comments:
Post a Comment