By Brooke King, Staff Writer
Over centuries, one issue within the literary world has sparked speculation and intrigue from academics and non-academics alike: did Shakespeare indeed author the plays that were credited to him?
Set in the politically intense Elizabethan England, Anonymous brings about a theory of who authored the plays credited to Shakespeare, if he himself did not write them. The film centers around the theory that a son of an illiterate provincial glover could not possibly have authored the works, but instead theorizes that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, was the actual author. There has long been many who have questioned whether or not a man of poor breeding could ascend to such brilliance, but wasn’t Albert Einstein poor as well?
While the film portrays Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) as a character that cruelly resembles the village idiot, devoid of wit and refinement. From the lack of brilliance in the character Shakespeare, the audience is affirmed that such a man could not possibly author such masterpieces, but articulate enough to act. Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans), however, effortlessly is the mastermind. He exudes a posed manner, bearing authority and ease within the court of Queen Elizabeth. With all the connections of the crown, it is speculated by the film that Edward was could have possibly been the lover of young Elizabeth (Joley Richardson).
The film throws the audience into the first half of the Elizabethan age, where the viewer sees the evil doings of the Earl of Essex (Sam Reid), whose plot to assassinate the queen ended in his beheading. Anonymous brings forth the reality of Elizabethan age, the splendor of courtly life, and the poverty that swept over the London city streets. However, the most intriguing part of the film was the realistic way in which the film portrayed the Globe Theater, the audience’s interaction with the actors on stage, the muck and filth that the poor stood in, and the box seats where the Earl of Oxford could witness his masterpieces played out, which of course were credited to Shakespeare.
While the notion that Shakespeare was not the author of his great plays is somewhat absurd considering that the Earl of Oxford died in 1604, which would attribute ten of Shakespeare’s uncredited plays to a dead author, the films other facets are put together quite well. All of the actors, whether delivering small or large parts to the film, deliver dialogue and acting that compliment the films intriguing premise. However, no matter how much the director Roland Emmerich believes that Oxford was indeed the author of Shakespeare’s plays, it is simply false.
An audience, however, that knows little of Shakespeare and the candidates that have sprung up from theories relating to Shakespeare’s authorship can still marvel at the historical relevance of the film and enjoy the story as well. If the audience gets nothing out of the film but enjoyment, they will still leave the theater having a clear understanding that Shakespeare was a profound figure of importance within literature.
