| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From director J.J. Abrams comes the next installment in the Star Trek saga, Star Trek Into Darkness. See it at Cinemark theaters now and pre-order on Blu-ray, 3D Blu-ray, DVD, and the Exclusive Starfleet Phaser Gift Set. Shop Star Trek Into Darkness and more in the Star Trek Store. Learn more |
Frequently Bought Together
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Special Features
Commentary with Director Roland Emmerich and Writer John Orloff
Who Is The Real William Shakespeare?
Who Is The Real William Shakespeare?
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
Historical romp Anonymous takes an academic controversy (did the man named Shakespeare write the plays attributed to him?) and whips it into a lurid melodrama, crammed with political intrigue, heaving bosoms, flashing swordplay, conspiracies, forced marriage, incest, and more. Towards the end of the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans, Enduring Love), seeks an outlet for his poetic drive: he tries to get the playwright Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) to present his plays as Jonson's own. Jonson is reluctant to undercut his own work… but his friend, a vainglorious illiterate actor by the name of William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall), happily claims the glory when Oxford's plays prove hugely popular. But the real story of Anonymous isn't about authorship, it's about machinations to capture the throne of England when Elizabeth (Vanessa Redgrave) dies. Wily counselors vie with dashing secret heirs, royal dallying leads to shocking secrets, and supposedly the plays are inextricably caught up in it all--except that they're not, really, and so Anonymous, for all its clever plotting and lush production values, falls flat by the end. Still, it's an enjoyable confection up to then, and showcases some lovely (if woefully historically inaccurate--the mosh-pit moment is delightfully preposterous) presentations of bits of the plays. Also featuring David Thewlis (Naked) and Joely Richardson, daughter of Ms. Redgrave, playing the younger Elizabeth. --Bret Fetzer
Product Description
Set in the political snake-pit of Elizabethan England, Anonymous speculates on an issue that has for centuries intrigued academics and brilliant minds... who was the author of the plays credited to William Shakespeare? Anonymous poses one possible answer, 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 were exposed in the most unlikely of places: the London stage.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
172 of 205 people found the following review helpful
Format:DVD|Amazon Verified Purchase
I always accepted the idea that Shakespeare wrote his own plays, and considered anything to the contrary to be merely speculation not fact. So, the premise-what if Shakespeare never wrote a word, I found not to be appealing.
Upon reading some good reviews, I decided to see it, and found it to be a high quality production and a wonderful experience. Director Roland Emmerich previously directed 2012, and Independence Day, and writer John Orloff previously wrote some episodes of Band of Brothers, and as you watch this movie you will realise this term BoB originated with Shakespeare.
Anonymous proposes the Earl of Oxford wrote all the plays, anonymously donated them to Ben Johnson, a well known writer of the time for him to take credit. Then an uncouth illiterate actor, named Shakespeare steps in to claim the credit. The peer remained anonymous for reasons of social acceptability.
Another reason he may have remained anonymous which I totally loved was the parallel structure between what happened in the plays, and the real life events of the courtiers and Queen Elizabeth. Cecil, the courtier villain in this movie is a hunchback (historical fact), and brother in law of the Earl of Oxford. Richard 3 in Shakespeare's play is a hunchback, so the play becomes a social satire.
A scene where a man is stabbed through a curtain mirrors a scene in Hamlet. A usurped heir is sent to Ireland, and there is a plot to kill him, similar to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Hamlet.
Emmerich's direction gives Anonymous a much grander scope. We have big set pieces, such as a rebel attack on a bridge leading to the tower of London, rowing a boat in the Thames with the London skyline looming behind, an aerial shot of a huge crowd in the snow, and visual scenes of quite unsanitary London of the time, and he evokes the period very well. For example it rains on the actor in the theater, as he recites his lines. Certain scenes play out in ways we have not scene before, particularly Hamlet's soliloquy where he holds a knife, Richard 3 as caricature, crowd interaction and participation, sweet talking bawdy ladies with Shakespeare's words. I loved this. Visually outstanding, with exquisite and intricate costumes.
I liked the lead actors charisma and presence. He was so in character and looked older for the part that I did not recognise him till the credits. Rhys Ifans starred in Notting Hill, and Pirate Radio. He does a terrific job, perhaps his best work, as does the actor who plays Johnson. There is a particular scene between the two of them at the end that makes me tear up even as I write. Derek Jacobi, begins and ends the movie opening and closing the premise.
Vanessa Redgrave plays the doddering confused queen, and her daughter Joely Richardson plays her younger self, who has a torrid affair with the Earl of Oxford when she was young, producing an illicit heir. The queen has several torrid affairs which become part of the plot of succession. Shakespeare was played by Rafe Spall, son of Timothy Spall, who you have probably seen in several movies.
If the screenwriter was hoping to persuade me, he certainly made me think. Perhaps he goes too overboard with Shakespeare having a unique form of illiteracy, he can read words and memorise them but he can't write, and yet he is a scheming manipulative lout, a criminal, a drunkard, a successful entrepreneur, and a sociopath. Asked to speak to a crowd he stumbles inarticulately over his words. If Shakespeare was as inarticulate, and uneducated as portrayed, how could he have convinced anyone of his genius when he lacked the most basic skills of expression.
If not Shakespeare, then who?
Almost two centuries passed before anyone seriously questioned Shakespeare's authorship. It has been suggested that Sir Francis Bacon wrote these plays, but why would an already famous writer still living when Shakespeare's First Folio was published in 1623 give credit to someone else. DeVere appears to be the current favorite among conspiracy theorists. If DeVere was excluded from the court, as he is in the movie then he would not be in a position to satirise the court, or include such pointed commentary in his plays. DeVere as a child in the movie performs a piece from Midsummer nights dream for the queen. He could hardly have written it as an adult then, could he? Curiously, at times the movie appears to undermine its own premise.
According to Who Wrote Shakespeare? by John Michell, 26 different candidates have been proposed as the author of Shakespeare. I consider this an outstanding and well researched book, which lists all the candidates, and argues pro and con without taking sides, and is a good source of facts including Jonson's eulogy, and details about the Bard's will. Another book available on Kindle, Who Wrote Shakespeare? by James Shapiro argues the established view, and rebuts alternative authorship. It's worth exploring both these books to have a more global understanding of all the issues.
In the movie Ben Johnson proclaims sincere affection for DeVere's language skills.
In reality, Ben Johnson famously said of Shakespeare: "he would... buy the reversion of old plays,"but then mark not whose 'twas first: and after-times may judge it to be his..."On Poet Ape.
The movie claims no manuscript written by Shakespeare survives. If you don't have evidence that Shakespeare wrote something, does that mean you have evidence someone else wrote it? You cannot infer alternative authorship from a negation, only from evidence. If you have evidence that these plays were previously written, and performed or were adapted from books, then you can verify that Shakespeare was not the originator, merely wrote a version, and credit the original source. It seems that with some of these plays, they were circulating already, and then Shakespeare wrote a version, or made his own adaptation, which then became the definitive version.
Only 18 of the 36 plays in the First Folio of 1623, were previously published. Eight of those 18 were only published anonymously, and a further 9 plays, pirated versions, previously published under the name of Shakespeare were rejected as Shakespeare plays. In addition the Sonnets in 1609 were apparently published without Shakespeare's authority or consent, and quickly pulled by the publisher. In addition there were several other plays such as Taming a Shrew 1594, King Leir 1605, First part of the contention 1595, Troublesome Raigne of King John 1591 all published anonymously but not attributed to Shakespeare.
The Passionate Pilgrime 1612 edition initially published under Shakespeare's name was reissued without Shakespeare's name following a complaint by writer Thomas Heywood. Only 5 of the poems published in the 1599 edition of Passionate Pilgrim are attributed to Shakespeare with certainty by Shakespearean scholarhsip.
Undoubtedly, this movie will stimulate debate and controversy. The idea that he didn't write a single word goes too far in my opinion, it would be interesting to know for sure what he did and did not write. I do think this is one of the best movies I have seen all year.
Wherever you stand on this, I highly recommend you see it, consider it, and form your own opinion. If you're like me, it's too tabloidy to be taken seriously, the once virgin queen now a nympho, having an illegitimate son with the real Shakespeare, and so on.
Even if like me you do not agree with the premise, you might be surprised to discover you still love the movie.
I think you will enjoy it, and I hope this was helpful.
Upon reading some good reviews, I decided to see it, and found it to be a high quality production and a wonderful experience. Director Roland Emmerich previously directed 2012, and Independence Day, and writer John Orloff previously wrote some episodes of Band of Brothers, and as you watch this movie you will realise this term BoB originated with Shakespeare.
Anonymous proposes the Earl of Oxford wrote all the plays, anonymously donated them to Ben Johnson, a well known writer of the time for him to take credit. Then an uncouth illiterate actor, named Shakespeare steps in to claim the credit. The peer remained anonymous for reasons of social acceptability.
Another reason he may have remained anonymous which I totally loved was the parallel structure between what happened in the plays, and the real life events of the courtiers and Queen Elizabeth. Cecil, the courtier villain in this movie is a hunchback (historical fact), and brother in law of the Earl of Oxford. Richard 3 in Shakespeare's play is a hunchback, so the play becomes a social satire.
A scene where a man is stabbed through a curtain mirrors a scene in Hamlet. A usurped heir is sent to Ireland, and there is a plot to kill him, similar to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Hamlet.
Emmerich's direction gives Anonymous a much grander scope. We have big set pieces, such as a rebel attack on a bridge leading to the tower of London, rowing a boat in the Thames with the London skyline looming behind, an aerial shot of a huge crowd in the snow, and visual scenes of quite unsanitary London of the time, and he evokes the period very well. For example it rains on the actor in the theater, as he recites his lines. Certain scenes play out in ways we have not scene before, particularly Hamlet's soliloquy where he holds a knife, Richard 3 as caricature, crowd interaction and participation, sweet talking bawdy ladies with Shakespeare's words. I loved this. Visually outstanding, with exquisite and intricate costumes.
I liked the lead actors charisma and presence. He was so in character and looked older for the part that I did not recognise him till the credits. Rhys Ifans starred in Notting Hill, and Pirate Radio. He does a terrific job, perhaps his best work, as does the actor who plays Johnson. There is a particular scene between the two of them at the end that makes me tear up even as I write. Derek Jacobi, begins and ends the movie opening and closing the premise.
Vanessa Redgrave plays the doddering confused queen, and her daughter Joely Richardson plays her younger self, who has a torrid affair with the Earl of Oxford when she was young, producing an illicit heir. The queen has several torrid affairs which become part of the plot of succession. Shakespeare was played by Rafe Spall, son of Timothy Spall, who you have probably seen in several movies.
If the screenwriter was hoping to persuade me, he certainly made me think. Perhaps he goes too overboard with Shakespeare having a unique form of illiteracy, he can read words and memorise them but he can't write, and yet he is a scheming manipulative lout, a criminal, a drunkard, a successful entrepreneur, and a sociopath. Asked to speak to a crowd he stumbles inarticulately over his words. If Shakespeare was as inarticulate, and uneducated as portrayed, how could he have convinced anyone of his genius when he lacked the most basic skills of expression.
If not Shakespeare, then who?
Almost two centuries passed before anyone seriously questioned Shakespeare's authorship. It has been suggested that Sir Francis Bacon wrote these plays, but why would an already famous writer still living when Shakespeare's First Folio was published in 1623 give credit to someone else. DeVere appears to be the current favorite among conspiracy theorists. If DeVere was excluded from the court, as he is in the movie then he would not be in a position to satirise the court, or include such pointed commentary in his plays. DeVere as a child in the movie performs a piece from Midsummer nights dream for the queen. He could hardly have written it as an adult then, could he? Curiously, at times the movie appears to undermine its own premise.
According to Who Wrote Shakespeare? by John Michell, 26 different candidates have been proposed as the author of Shakespeare. I consider this an outstanding and well researched book, which lists all the candidates, and argues pro and con without taking sides, and is a good source of facts including Jonson's eulogy, and details about the Bard's will. Another book available on Kindle, Who Wrote Shakespeare? by James Shapiro argues the established view, and rebuts alternative authorship. It's worth exploring both these books to have a more global understanding of all the issues.
In the movie Ben Johnson proclaims sincere affection for DeVere's language skills.
In reality, Ben Johnson famously said of Shakespeare: "he would... buy the reversion of old plays,"but then mark not whose 'twas first: and after-times may judge it to be his..."On Poet Ape.
The movie claims no manuscript written by Shakespeare survives. If you don't have evidence that Shakespeare wrote something, does that mean you have evidence someone else wrote it? You cannot infer alternative authorship from a negation, only from evidence. If you have evidence that these plays were previously written, and performed or were adapted from books, then you can verify that Shakespeare was not the originator, merely wrote a version, and credit the original source. It seems that with some of these plays, they were circulating already, and then Shakespeare wrote a version, or made his own adaptation, which then became the definitive version.
Only 18 of the 36 plays in the First Folio of 1623, were previously published. Eight of those 18 were only published anonymously, and a further 9 plays, pirated versions, previously published under the name of Shakespeare were rejected as Shakespeare plays. In addition the Sonnets in 1609 were apparently published without Shakespeare's authority or consent, and quickly pulled by the publisher. In addition there were several other plays such as Taming a Shrew 1594, King Leir 1605, First part of the contention 1595, Troublesome Raigne of King John 1591 all published anonymously but not attributed to Shakespeare.
The Passionate Pilgrime 1612 edition initially published under Shakespeare's name was reissued without Shakespeare's name following a complaint by writer Thomas Heywood. Only 5 of the poems published in the 1599 edition of Passionate Pilgrim are attributed to Shakespeare with certainty by Shakespearean scholarhsip.
Undoubtedly, this movie will stimulate debate and controversy. The idea that he didn't write a single word goes too far in my opinion, it would be interesting to know for sure what he did and did not write. I do think this is one of the best movies I have seen all year.
Wherever you stand on this, I highly recommend you see it, consider it, and form your own opinion. If you're like me, it's too tabloidy to be taken seriously, the once virgin queen now a nympho, having an illegitimate son with the real Shakespeare, and so on.
Even if like me you do not agree with the premise, you might be surprised to discover you still love the movie.
I think you will enjoy it, and I hope this was helpful.
120 of 157 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
We're Not All Unanimous on Anonymous, But It Won 6 Lola Prizes in Germany
December 28, 2011
Format:DVD|Amazon Verified Purchase
Roland Emmerich's new film, Anonymous, is inspired by the same theory that gripped Sigmund Freud during the last dozen years of his life--that "William Shakespeare" was the pseudonym and front man of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford (1550-1604). When you see this film and ponder its thesis, I hope you will remind yourself that Freud was passionately intrigued by the likelihood that de Vere was Shakespeare. Before long, I predict Freud will be vindicated. The film has generated much debate, some of it acrimonious. Yet the Anonymous website has a poll showing that only 51% of visitors still believe the traditional author wrote the canon.
When his wife Anne pleads with de Vere to stop writing plays, he replies, "The voices! I can't stop them. They come to me. I would go mad if I didn't write down what the voices say." This is an intriguing surmise about de Vere's creative process, as though his Muse speaks to him aloud. In fact, I suspect that some form of unusual awareness and tolerance of multiple self states plays a crucial role for some literary geniuses such as de Vere.
Psychoanalysts are in a unique position to elucidate the psychology of literary anonymity and pseudonymity. The evidence suggests that keeping one's authorship secret helps promote what Keats called Shakespeare's "negative capability"--keeping his own identity in the background as he created hundreds of utterly convincing characters. In a sense, Edward de Vere's most magical character of all was his pseudonym and front man, "William Shakespeare." With some likely assistance from the man from Stratford, this character lives on for most people more vividly than does de Vere himself. Why did de Vere have to conceal his authorship? For many reasons. Nobility did not write for the common theater. They rarely published poems under their own name during their lifetime. And the plays of Shakespeare spoof many powerful court figures, and comment on various court intrigues.
The film has de Vere tell Ben Jonson, "All art is political." Attributing the plays' authorship to a commoner helped conceal some of their provocative critiques. Even so, the Elizabethan theater audience as depicted in the film recognized the character Richard III as a spoof of de Vere's hunch-backed brother-in-law, Robert Cecil. They also recognized Polonius in Hamlet as a disguised portrayal of de Vere's father-in-law. Some Shakespeare scholars still admit the latter is correct, though others have backed off from this identification, since it strengthens the case for de Vere's authorship.
You may have read some of the vitriolic attacks on Anonymous by Columbia University's James Shapiro and others. This fierce backlash intrigues me. The academic Shakespeare establishment usually treats the authorship question as taboo. In other words, many Shakespeare organizations and publications will not even discuss it. One English professor told me it would be "academic suicide" to research de Vere's possible authorship. A Shakespearean publication invited me to write a book review, then changed their mind once they read it, explaining that they had "blundered," and would never publish anything by an Oxfordian (that is, someone who thinks de Vere, Earl of Oxford, wrote the works of Shakespeare).
Both Emmerich and Orloff admit their film takes poetic license in order to provoke and entertain. But the Stratfordians are not amused. Their over-reaction to the film is Inquisitional in its tone. We instinctively sympathize with the underdog, all things being equal. The Shakespeare establishment may have made things worse for itself by forgetting this is just a film.
Many of the reviews of Anonymous have panned the film because its premise is so controversial. A common theme in these critical reviews is the assumption that the Shakespeare scholars must be correct, and there is "no evidence whatsoever" that Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare. Certain premises are repeatedly asserted to be incontrovertible refutations that de Vere could be the author. You've heard that many plays of Shakespeare are known with certainty to have been written after 1604, the year that de Vere died. But, as some Shakespeare scholars admit, we simply do not know with certainty when any of the plays were written. The conventional dating of the plays is based on Shakespeare of Stratford having died in 1616. So it was assumed he wrote roughly two plays per year, and these assumptions played a crucial if circular role in the conjectural dating of when the plays were written.
If you'd like to read more, my Oxfreudian website has the full text of many of my 50 publications on this topic, along with links to several other relevant websites.
Richard M. Waugaman, M.D.
Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, and
Faculty Expert on Shakespeare for Media Contacts,
Georgetown University
When his wife Anne pleads with de Vere to stop writing plays, he replies, "The voices! I can't stop them. They come to me. I would go mad if I didn't write down what the voices say." This is an intriguing surmise about de Vere's creative process, as though his Muse speaks to him aloud. In fact, I suspect that some form of unusual awareness and tolerance of multiple self states plays a crucial role for some literary geniuses such as de Vere.
Psychoanalysts are in a unique position to elucidate the psychology of literary anonymity and pseudonymity. The evidence suggests that keeping one's authorship secret helps promote what Keats called Shakespeare's "negative capability"--keeping his own identity in the background as he created hundreds of utterly convincing characters. In a sense, Edward de Vere's most magical character of all was his pseudonym and front man, "William Shakespeare." With some likely assistance from the man from Stratford, this character lives on for most people more vividly than does de Vere himself. Why did de Vere have to conceal his authorship? For many reasons. Nobility did not write for the common theater. They rarely published poems under their own name during their lifetime. And the plays of Shakespeare spoof many powerful court figures, and comment on various court intrigues.
The film has de Vere tell Ben Jonson, "All art is political." Attributing the plays' authorship to a commoner helped conceal some of their provocative critiques. Even so, the Elizabethan theater audience as depicted in the film recognized the character Richard III as a spoof of de Vere's hunch-backed brother-in-law, Robert Cecil. They also recognized Polonius in Hamlet as a disguised portrayal of de Vere's father-in-law. Some Shakespeare scholars still admit the latter is correct, though others have backed off from this identification, since it strengthens the case for de Vere's authorship.
You may have read some of the vitriolic attacks on Anonymous by Columbia University's James Shapiro and others. This fierce backlash intrigues me. The academic Shakespeare establishment usually treats the authorship question as taboo. In other words, many Shakespeare organizations and publications will not even discuss it. One English professor told me it would be "academic suicide" to research de Vere's possible authorship. A Shakespearean publication invited me to write a book review, then changed their mind once they read it, explaining that they had "blundered," and would never publish anything by an Oxfordian (that is, someone who thinks de Vere, Earl of Oxford, wrote the works of Shakespeare).
Both Emmerich and Orloff admit their film takes poetic license in order to provoke and entertain. But the Stratfordians are not amused. Their over-reaction to the film is Inquisitional in its tone. We instinctively sympathize with the underdog, all things being equal. The Shakespeare establishment may have made things worse for itself by forgetting this is just a film.
Many of the reviews of Anonymous have panned the film because its premise is so controversial. A common theme in these critical reviews is the assumption that the Shakespeare scholars must be correct, and there is "no evidence whatsoever" that Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare. Certain premises are repeatedly asserted to be incontrovertible refutations that de Vere could be the author. You've heard that many plays of Shakespeare are known with certainty to have been written after 1604, the year that de Vere died. But, as some Shakespeare scholars admit, we simply do not know with certainty when any of the plays were written. The conventional dating of the plays is based on Shakespeare of Stratford having died in 1616. So it was assumed he wrote roughly two plays per year, and these assumptions played a crucial if circular role in the conjectural dating of when the plays were written.
If you'd like to read more, my Oxfreudian website has the full text of many of my 50 publications on this topic, along with links to several other relevant websites.
Richard M. Waugaman, M.D.
Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, and
Faculty Expert on Shakespeare for Media Contacts,
Georgetown University
32 of 41 people found the following review helpful
By Viva
Format:DVD
I will admit that I did not follow all of the political machinations going on here, and I don't claim to know if the Earl really authored all those plays and sonnets or if W. Shakespeare did. It doesn't matter anyway. This film is quite entertaining and never lags or plods along. The performances are all quite strong, including the brief bookends provided by Derek Jacobi.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
I saw it from Netflix and I love it.
Is true?, I don't know but think in that is amazing. Shakespeare a fraud? wow, the story is nice (with some loose ends but its ok), the actors made a good work, and the... Read more
Published 4 days ago by Yo
5.0 out of 5 stars
Shakespeare Fans, Beware
The film adds fuel to the "who really wrote Shakespeare's plays and poems?" controversy. True Shakespeare fans must watch it - you might poo-poo it, but you have to enjoy... Read more
Published 11 days ago by Brenda Tuberville
5.0 out of 5 stars
... a TOUR DE FORCE ...
... " I have made my life's work : to know the the character of mankind ...you may have betrayed me but you will never betray my words " ... says Edward de Vere ... Read more
Published 20 days ago by ESTEBAN POSADA DUQUE
5.0 out of 5 stars
Shakespeare's origins
For quite some time, there has been a debate about William Shakespeare. No one knows for sure who was this man or what are his origins. Read more
Published 21 days ago by Reader
4.0 out of 5 stars
A good movie for history buffs
I saw this movie in the theaters, and then later purchased the DVD to watch with my son who became interested in the topic. Read more
Published 24 days ago by K. M. Howard
3.0 out of 5 stars
Not a new idea but lavishly done
DeVere as the true bard is not a new idea, but in Anonymous the theory is presented in great detail with lavish decoration and eye-catching scenery captured beautifully by the... Read more
Published 1 month ago by Mark Nave
2.0 out of 5 stars
I couldn't care less... unfortunately
I am an Stratfordian, let's get that clear from the get/go. I am however not someone who would hate a movie because of the message. Read more
Published 1 month ago by KCV16
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good movie
I wanted to know if the Earl of Oxford or William Shakespeare from Stratford upon Avon wrote the plays.
However the movie did not really analyze or study the subject in depth.
However the movie did not really analyze or study the subject in depth.
Published 1 month ago by Diana
3.0 out of 5 stars
Suspend your disbelief
If you can do that, this is enjoyable. I love Shakespeare so I think the theory presented is trash, but it was still fun to watch it unfold.
Published 1 month ago by Nick
5.0 out of 5 stars
great movie
i'm sold on the theory. well performed. i am now and forever an earl of oxford fan. all his works are incredible.
Published 1 month ago by vicki fraser
