Spontaneous applause by the crowd at Nottingham Cineworld at the end of Roland Emmerich's assassination of Shakespeare. Really?
For all the window dressing, this story of the real author of the works claimed by the bard is hogwash.
The fact that the movie stars the great Shakespearean actors Derek Jacobi and Vanessa Redgrave is a vain attempt to add a dash of credibility.
Lets put my cards on the table. I have absolutely no thought on whether Shakespeare really did write all of those famous works.
What I know for certain is that scriptwriter John Orloff's representation of what supposedly happened is bordering on laughable.
Jacobi plays a present-day theatre narrator who starts to tell his audience of the true identity of works like Twelfth Night.
As the tale unfolds, we are transported back to Elizabethan England where a tale unfolds of political intrigue as the succession to the throne is undecided.
As those at court jockey for position, one disenfranchised nobleman, the Earl Of Oxford (Rhys Ifans), decides that the pen is mightier than the sword and tries to put ideas into the heads of the populace by anonymously penning theatre pieces.
These are performed through the auspices of theatre impressario Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) but somehow one is claimed by drunken actor Will Shakespeare and then the lie gains such arms and legs, he gets the credit for all of them.
Frankly, if the suggestion had been that Shakespeare had been an intellectual himself then the story may well have worked.
However, Emmerich's movie suggests he was illiterate.
In that case, it seems totally inconceivable, bearing in mind the popularity of the plays, that he would not have been found out. After all, this Shakespeare is blessed with the vocabulary of a genius on paper and that of a stable hand verbally.
There are other plot turns that completely defy logic or any nod to history.
Elizabeth I is, for example, portrayed as having a bagful of illegitimate children but while there is suggestion that she may have had one during her teens, there has never been any sense of this level of promiscuity.
In truth, if the audience parks any thought of English history and, in that context, a plausible plot, Anonymous could be seen as quite entertaining.
The sets are dramatic and true to the period as are the costumes. Sadly, the language is less so.
Ifans is very good as the agonising Oxford and Redgrave is suitably regal as Elizabeth.
There is a decent amount of Machiavellian-style plotting which keeps the flame of interest burning throughout.
But, I'm afraid giant plot holes prevented me from putting my hands together at the end or giving this any more than 5.5/10
0 Yorumlar