Change Your Image
clydedesper
Reviews
Anonymous (2011)
"So full of shapes is fancy that it alone is high fantastical"
The great and lasting interest in Shakespeare arises from the fact that the author, whoever he may have been in real life, was a highly talented writer, rightly hailed in the introductory material from the First Folio of 1623 as a transcending genius of English literature.
What is Genius? Rhys Ifans, portraying the Earl of Oxford in "Anonymous", shows us this passion for his writing gift in an early scene. He is in his library, surrounded by dozens of play manuscripts, of which the overwhelming majority have never seen the public stage. His compulsion to see them performed and published is evident in the character's pathos. He must find a way for that to happen. In the environment of the Elizabethan Age, there was no choice for Oxford, the highest ranking nobleman at the court of Queen Elizabeth I, other than to allow another man's name, "William Shakespeare", to be posted on the playbills and printed on the title pages of the plays. This was the price, and Oxford felt it deeply, as shown in a later scene towards the end of his life. He approaches one man, the playwright Ben Jonson, who knows Oxford and his work as a fellow playwright. Oxford seeks from him the recognition and acclaim that has been denied him: are his plays really good? Jonson replies that Oxford has become"The Soule of the Age".
The tandem of Vanessa Redgrave and her daughter, Joely Richardson, played the part of the Queen at different stages of her life with a no-holds-barred attitude. They sought to show the private personality of the Queen without sycophancy, without adhering to the stereotypes of recorded history. Was she a Virgin Queen? Official English histories answer in the affirmative, and one must agree that this stereotype was heavily promoted by officialdom. Those contemporaries who took issue with this public portrayal usually did so behind the shelter of a foreign residence. "Free speech" was not much valued by government officialdom, and that being the case, some have come to question the doctrine of the Virgin Queen. They have postulated of a "Prince Tudor", born of the Queen, with possible implications to the royal succession. Over the past fifty years, a number of writers have, searched material in the Shakespeare canon, particularly the Sonnets, for possible concealed truths. "Anonymous" goes full tilt in support of "Prince Tudor", arousing controversy among Oxfordians.
The present reviewer perches solidly on the fence on this issue. "Prince Tudor" has not been proved, neither has it been disproved; thus it is an open question. It's a movie. Producers, directors, and writers always take liberty with facts. This was certainly the case the other authorship film, "Shakespeare in Love", which would seem to be much more lacking in factual backing than "Anonymous'.
What do we know of "genius"? Rollo May discusses it in his book "Love and Will". For May, "Genius" is a particular gift, a capability and a talent far beyond the scope of the ordinary, given rarely and coming with a price. It comes with a passion. To pursue one's genius is not an option; it becomes an obsession which he or she must pursue – May refers to this as following one's "Daemon". This obsession burned inside the likes of Michelangelo and led him to that perch underneath the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel for years. It also burned in the breast of the Earl of Oxford. To date, with few exceptions, the English Departments of the colleges and universities of the world have closed rank and held fast to their tradition that the true author of the Shakespeare canon was a gentleman from Stratford-upon-Avon. However, the deficiencies in their argument have, in the past 150 years, led a number of prominent dissidents,* not bound by the immense pressure towards conformity in English Department academia, to cast doubt on this assumption. The Stratfordians rely heavily on authority and tradition, but it was such an attitude that supported the notion that the earth was the center of the solar system. We know how that matter came out once the evidence was gathered and presented to the educated public. By now, the Oxfordians have marshaled extensive evidence in favor of their man, the Earl of Oxford. This evidence has been presented in three peer-reviewed journals: Elizabethan Review, The Oxfordian, and Brief Chronicles, while books by Charlton Ogburn, Richard Whalen, and Mark Anderson, among others, cover the subject in depth.
A branch of the Oxfordian movement supports the "Prince Tudor" theories, based upon their analysis of inferences they see in Shakespeare's Sonnets. "Prince Tudor" is an idea that remains unproven, but not disproved. The matter could be settled by comparative analysis of DNA from the tombs of Queen Elizabeth I and the Earl of Southampton, but the prospect is remote of this happening in our lifetimes. So while Emmerich and Orloff present a wildly entertaining film, based on a lot of historical facts to some extent scrabbled together. "Anonymous" is a work of the art of filmography, but not a documentary. It is a film which may be respected and admired on its own terms.
But would the Bard, whoever he might have been, appreciate this sort of drama? In his own words, "So full of shapes is fancy that it alone is high fantastical". That's a line from perhaps his greatest comedy, "Twelfth Night".
* The list of prominent dissidents to the Stratfordian theory of the authorship of the works of Shakespeare, publicly expressing their Doubt About Will, includes Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Michael William Cecil (8th Marquis of Exeter, 17th Earl of Exeter, 18th Baron Burghley), Charlie Chaplin, Charles Dickens, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Sigmund Freud, Sir John Gielgud, Tyrone Guthrie, Leslie Howard, Jeremy Irons, Sari Derek Jacobi, William James, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., Justice John Paul Stevens, Orson Welles, Walt Whitman, and Michael York.
Too Big to Fail (2011)
Too Big to Fail and Too Big to Trivialize
"Too Big to Fail" addresses the subject of modern-day mega corporations whose failure, however deserving, might be of such catastrophic dimensions that it must be avoided, if at all possible, whatever the cost. The subject matter, the US financial crisis of 2008, is profound and enormous, in terms of its shock at the time and continuing consequences, to trivialize. The main characters – William Hurt, Paul Giamatti, for instance – become aware of the distinct possibility of spiraling into a 21st century version of The Great Depression. We are awestruck by such a possibility. The plot forces at work are both economic and political, both having profound influences. Politics? As usual, it is the Art of the Possible. Economics? A very difficult-to-comprehend arena, neither art nor science. The story leads us, step by step, as numerous characters play their role on this stage. The message: How could they have been so stupid? The filmmakers have hit the nail on the head.