Showing posts with label anonymous. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anonymous. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Joely Richardson Dons Queen Elizabeth's Many Wigs In Anonymous

Cinema Blend


 
Joely Richardson Dons Queen Elizabeth's Many Wigs In Anonymous image
Queen Elizabeth I, the legendary ruler of England, has been the star of any number of films set in the era, portrayed by the likes of Cate Blanchett, Judi Dench, Bette Davis and Sarah Bernhardt. In Anonymous, the new drama in theaters this Friday, Elizabeth takes a supporting role in the story of the Earl of Oxford Edward de Vere, the nobleman who, as this movie theorizes, is the real author behind Shakespeare's famous works. Jamie Campbell Bower plays Oxford as a teenager, when he began an affair with the twentysomething Elizabeth, played by Joely Richardson; later in the film, when Rhys Ifans steps into the central role, Elizabeth has aged as well, played by Richardson's own real-life mother, Vanessa Redgrave.

Anonymous seems on the surface to be about Shakespeare, proving the man from Stratford-- played by Rafe Spall as a power-hungry buffoon-- was not in fact the author of the works. But it's surprisingly concerned with the politics of the time, with one of the many attempts to overthrow Elizabeth's rule and the scheming of her many advisers-- specifically her advisor William Cecil-- to take power for themselves. As a nobleman Edward de Vere had information about all of this, and as one of Elizabeth's lovers he also has a particularly vested interest in seeing the monarchy stand strong.

I talked to Richardson about her role in the film, working hard to let her naturally similarities to her mother link the character, playing one of the most iconic figures of British history, and what she thinks of the "Oxfordian" theory behind the film, that de Vere was in fact that author of Shakespeare's works. You can check out the full video interview below, and see Anonymous in theaters this weekend.


Saturday, October 29, 2011

Spotlight On ANONYMOUS: Shakespeare's Top 5 Lines; videos from prior great Shakespeare films

BroadwayWorld 

Thursday, October 27, 2011; Posted: 01:10 PM - by Pat Cerasaro

   

Spotlight-On-ANONYMOUS-Shakespeares-Top-5-Lines-20010101
Today we continue our special SPOTLIGHT ON series consisting of five entries total, each of which highlight a different facet of the rich and wonderful world of William Shakespeare and all with a particular emphasis on the controversial new feature film that explores the time, place, politics and goings-on of the Elizabethan era and focuses on the possibility that the true author of the esteemed plays we now know may very well have been someone else entirely - Edward de Vere - and how the question of the canon’s true creation then comes into play - ANONYMOUS.

“All the world’s a stage,” after all, so it should come as no surprise that acts of lust, bloodshed and betrayal would exist in the actual life - or even the supposed one - of the man who created the most bloody and thought-provoking tragedies in the history of literature - whoever he may have actually been. Perhaps some brief analysis of the finest leading players, most memorable lines and moments, as well as an exploration of other notable acts of grand betrayal in Shakespeare’s plays will aid us on the journey to understanding the thesis of ANONYMOUS and bring us into a closer relationship with the individual who penned the greatest plays in the English language.

Since we have now analyzed the top ten male and female Shakespearean performers of the last few decades, today we are going to take a look at some of the most famous lines from Shakespeare’s plays and some of the best audiovisual examples of them given full weight in their dramatic context - ROMEO & JULIET, AS YOU LIKE IT, RICHARD III included - with leading players as iconic as Marlon Brando, Kevin Kline, Sir Ian McKellen, Kenneth Branagh and Leonardo DiCaprio!

Be sure to check out the introductory essay in this SPOTLIGHT ON ANONYMOUS series here, as well as the two previous columns in this 5 Top 5 special series singling out the top present day leading men and leading ladies of Shakespeare both onstage and onscreen.

A little bit AMADEUS, with a touch of TIMON OF ATHENS; a dash of DANGEROUS LIASONS and a heaping of HENRY IV: Parts 1 and 2; a generous helping of SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE with a wink to MERCHANT OF VENICE; a bit of BARRY LYNDON and a hint at HAMLET; romance and jealousy ala ROMEO & JULIET; Iago-ian sexual intrigue evocative of OTHELLO; maybe even a malicious, macabre moment of murderous violence or two reminiscent of MACBETH; then, all of it collectively taken, shaken, stirred and whipped up into a visual feast only the man behind THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW could possibly conjure up - like THE TEMPEST's Trinculo himself. That is only some of what ANONYMOUS can and could very well turn out to be. Find out for yourself on October 28!


All The Men And Women Merely Players


As the forlorn and disillusioned artist and balladeer Jaques intones in AS YOU LIKE IT, “All the world’s a stage and all the men and women merely players,” and so goes today’s spotlight on some of the greatest and most-quoted Shakespeare lines to date. While every highschooler knows the balcony scene from ROMEO & JULIET and Marc Antony‘s funereal oration for the fallen JULIUS CAESER, perhaps the RICHARD III material - oh so applicable to modern times, particularly the fearless and prescient McKellen version sampled herein - may also ring a bell or three for you, too. Iago is one of Shakespeare’s finest creations and his monologues in OTHELLO are littered with famous phrases and quotable quips, yet his chilling “I am not what I am” cuts closest to the quick insofar as compelling drama revelations are concerned. From Kenneth Branagh to Marlon Brando to Kevin Kline, as well as modern-day Shakespeare stars like Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes, these lines are just a handful of the many momentous occasions of poetic brilliance throughout the comedies, tragedies, histories and latter plays and give an idea of the extent of rich imagery and unforgettable rhetoric inherent in the works of the world’s greatest dramatist, William Shakespeare.

#5 AS YOU LIKE IT - “All the world’s a stage…”

Taken from Kenneth Branagh’s recent film adaptation of the gender-bending comedy/drama AS YOU LIKE IT, first seen on HBO in the US but released in cineplexes internationally, here we have noted Shakespeare interpreter Kevin Kline as an award-winning Jaques, delivering a lovely and lilting song before reciting one of the most recognizable and adored speeches from any Shakespeare comedy - or any play at all, for that matter - the Seven Ages Of Man monologue, which is of course otherwise known as “All the world’s a stage….”



#4 ROMEO & JULIET - “But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?”

Baz Luhrmann’s simply stunning and unprecedented modern-day adaptation of Shakespeare’s most classic romantic tragedy shocked and awed audiences when it was released fifteen years ago, yet the power of the Bard’s most potent and youthful speeches come through in full force now as much as then, if not more - particularly in the balcony scene as effectively and innovatively directed by Luhurmann and acted by an assured Claire Danes and a deeply romantic Leonardo DiCaprio, ideally cast in the tragic title roles.




#3 RICHARD III - “Now is the winter of my discontent…”

In perhaps the most ironic staging of any famous and notable Shakespearean line in today’s countdown, see master thespian Sir Ian McKellen deliver Richard III’s immortal “Now is the winter of my discontent” speech as you have most certainly never seen it before: while in the men’s room and making a pretty clear - as it were - comment with an in-your-face visual metaphor to beat the band. What a bustling musical accompaniment we get to go along with the irony, to boot!




#2 OTHELLO - “I am not what I am”

Kenneth Branagh’s worldwide presence as one of the foremost Shakespeare interpreters of the twenty-first century has been firmly established prior here with his appearance as one of our Top Ten Leading Men - if for his Hamlet alone - yet his palpably, desperately sinister portrayal of the diabolical anti-hero Iago in the 1995 film version of OTHELLO is proof that he can conjure considerable dramatic magic even when performing under another director besides himself, as he does so brilliantly and subtly and memorably here in Iago’s most pivotal of his many genius scenes in the complex, sex-drenched tragedy.


#1 JULIUS CAESAR - “Friends, Romans, countrymen…”
Saving the most remembered and riveting for last, here is perhaps the best known Shakespeare line of all - or at least one of the many, many quotable lines that have become a part of our language and culture in the last near-five hundred years - delivered with earth shattering gravitas by one of the greatest and most beloved American actors of all time, Marlon Brando. Here is Mark Antony’s funereal remembrance of his fallen leader, Julius Caesar, and his impassioned words of potential perseverance and, at last, naked honesty, given to the people of Rome.


So, which Shakespeare line do you think will go down in the history books as the most memorable and oft-quoted of all? Surely, more people are familiar with the balcony scene from ROMEO & JULIET than perhaps any other play or musical in history, so, at the end of the day, that may take the prize. Yet, who can help but me moved by Mark Anthony’s heroic words - particularly as performed by the legendary Marlon Brando? As with all of our entries in this special column, limiting the possible entrants to five precludes some of the riches in this collection of the greatest dramatic writing the world has ever known.
Be sure to stay tuned to BroadwayWorld for all things ANONYMOUS as we anticipate its release in movie theaters on October 28. Also, check back for our next Top 5 features, highlighting the Bard's most memorable scenes and moments of deception.



Read more: http://broadwayworld.com/article/Spotlight-On-ANONYMOUS-Shakespeares-Top-5-Lines-20111027#ixzz1cBIUPdF6

Joely Richardson and the Redgrave Dynasty

IrishTimes

 

Like mother . . . and sister and grandad

DONALD CLARKE



That Redgrave dynasty (nearly) in full

THE REDGRAVE GENES are mighty genes indeed. Joely Richardson has made a significant mark on the profession. She bounced around on top of Sean Bean in Ken Russell’s characteristically lubricious take on Lady Chatterley’s Lover. In 101 Dalmatians she held her own against that many dogs and one Glenn Close. She watched the citizens of Los Angeles being chopped up in Nip/Tuck. But when she walks into the room one’s first thoughts, despite those notable achievements, are of her mother, sister and grandfather. Those long features, that rigid bearing, those drawn-out vowels: the strain of molecules that gave us Michael Redgrave (grandad), Vanessa Redgrave (mum) and Natasha Richardson (Joely’s late sister) will not be resisted.

You can ponder the genetic ties in an odd new film called Anonymous. Directed by (of all people) Roland Emmerich, creator of Independence Day and 2012, the attractive-looking, nicely acted drama ponders questions concerning a progenitor of the Redgrave family business. Did one modestly educated man from Stratford-upon-Avon truly write all of Shakespeare’s plays? The film thinks not. If Emmerich and his writers are to be believed, Edward de Vere, the 17th earl of Oxford, a nobleman suspected of romancing Queen Elizabeth I, was the real talent behind the greatest oeuvre in the English language.

In a nice touch, Richardson plays the queen as a young woman and her mum essays the older, more disappointed monarch.

“It wasn’t necessary to impersonate one another because she is, after all, my mum,” Richardson says. “We did have a talk, and we all decided it would be wrong. It would be gimmicky. It would be better to play the truth of our characters. The young Elizabeth is a completely different woman.”
Redgrave and Richardson do, as it happens, sound more similar than many mothers and daughters. I can hear the senior actor’s signature purr in every sentence.

“Really? It’s hard for me to see that,” Richardson says. “Actually, somebody did send me a tape of her in her early 30s doing an interview. It was fascinating. I could barely recognise the person. She still spoke the queen’s English in a way she doesn’t now. That showed me how much voices change.”
Now what’s all this nonsense about Shakespeare not writing his own plays? Richardson seems a sensible woman, so surely she must know that this is the grandmother of all nutty conspiracy theories. At some point in the 19th century various precursors of internet chatter – communicating by carrier pigeon, perhaps – began putting forward various candidates as alternative authors of the great man’s dramas. A smidgen of snobbery seemed to drive the argument. How could a humble glovemaker’s son from Warwickshire have written so many significant works? Surely the author must have been posher than that. Hmm?

“Do you know what? That is my least favourite argument against the authorship question,” she says with a tolerant sigh. “With all due respect, this is just playing an emotional card. It’s nothing to do with class. It’s to do with what he would have been exposed to. How could he have written with such knowledge about the court? The topics were just so diverse. He had to have access to wide-open knowledge.”

Well, yes. But, aside from anything else, some of the plays were first performed after the earl of Oxford’s death.

“Many works are first released posthumously. There are other questions as well. There is evidence that . . .”

And she’s off. Richardson makes it clear that she savours this sort of argument. But she’s not going to take no for an answer. The more forceful she becomes, the more strongly the indestructible Redgrave genes show through. It’s like carrying on a debate with theatrical royalty.

Laurence Olivier famously announced the birth of Vanessa on the stage of the Old Vic before a performance of Hamlet, in which Sir Michael Redgrave, her father, was playing Laertes. With that start, nobody could be surprised that she drifted towards acting. But Vanessa, who devotes much of her spare time to hard-left politics, was never happy about the third generation following in her footsteps. I had heard that she begged Joely, a talented tennis player as a child, to do something less thespian with her life. But Joely and Natasha’s father, the film director Tony Richardson, seems to have nudged her back towards the stage.

“I wanted to be a gymnast,” she says. “I was obsessed with ice skating. I did want to be a tennis player. But Dad loved us putting on shows when we stayed with him. I was horribly shy. It’s the old cliche: I was shy in life but found a release through acting. My mother said: ‘Be anything but that.’ ”
We must assume that Redgrave has now come round. “It’s funny. Recently she asked me: ‘Did I really say that? Did I really say be anything else?’ She was genuinely surprised that she’d felt that way once. I don’t know what it was. Was it to do with her politics? I have a daughter, and I would want to protect her from the rejection that comes with acting. But I don’t think it was that with my mother.”

At any rate Richardson did attend a tennis academy, but she quickly realised that she had left it too late to move into the professional sphere of that sport. With the linear inevitability of Greek tragedy, she took a few roles in rep theatre, then drifted towards the Royal Shakespeare Company and found herself appearing in independent films. An early break came when she secured a role in Peter Greenaway’s Drowning by Numbers.

“Then I did Lady Chatterley’s Lover with Ken Russell and balanced that by appearing in 101 Dalmatians. For many years I didn’t do much theatre because I had a young daughter – or that was my excuse,” she says with a laugh.

There were a few high-profile romances during the 1990s. She spent time with Archie Stirling, an older Scottish laird, and dallied with popular party boy Jamie Theakston. She was married for a spell to Tim Bevan, founder of Working Title film company, and their daughter, Daisy, was born in 1992. But the tabloid media is a peculiar beast. Her most prominent headline during this period came in 2000 when, in an unintended sequel to Elizabeth Hurley’s That Dress moment, she wore some kind of backless number to the premiere of Ben Elton’s Maybe Baby.

“I was in my mid-30s,” she says, sighing. “That is supposed to be a difficult time for actors. Then there was That Dress. God, it seems like a lifetime ago.”

Richardson has found a niche for herself. A flexible actor, with a strong face and (of course) a beautiful voice, she has profited from the new respectability of American television. For six series she played the wife of Dr Sean McNamara, ace plastic surgeon, in the delightfully tacky Nip/Tuck. Over the past few years she has made frequent trips to Ardmore Studios, in Co Wicklow, to play Catherine Parr in the breathless historical epic The Tudors. “That is such a lovely experience,” she says.
Did she get a chance to fall down drunk in Temple Bar? “Do you know what? I am not a fall-down-drunk sort of person. Ha ha! Sorry, sorry. There are ages and stages of life when that’s suitable and there are stages when it isn’t. It may sound pretentious, but I don’t think I could meet my schedule if I was doing that. The Tudors is such a well-oiled machine. That is one of my loveliest working experiences.”

There is, sadly, no avoiding mention of the tragedies that have hung over the Redgrave family recently. In 2010 both her uncle, Corin Redgrave, the actor and Marxist firebrand, and her aunt Lynn Redgrave, yet another fine performer, passed away. These deaths followed the more unexpected passing of her sister, Natasha – Liam Neeson’s wife – after a skiing accident in 2009. One can’t help but wonder how the family are bearing up. Her mother lost two siblings and a daughter in little more than a year.

“I think that it has been a very brutal two and a half years,” she says after a pause. “It is, you know, completely heartbreaking. I feel like we have been levelled in life and that we keep going for all the people we love.”

They seem like a pretty robust bunch. Later tonight Richardson will stroll before the crowds for the BFI London Film Festival screening of Anonymous. A few hundred yards away her mother will be appearing opposite James Earl Jones in the West End production of Driving Miss Daisy. Richardson smiles at the prospect.

“But I will not be wearing That Dress.” Very wise.

MICHAEL REDGRAVE (1908-1985) Himself the son of a silent-movie actor, Sir Michael can be seen to advantage in such pictures as The Lady Vanishes, The Way to the Stars and, as the best-ever possessed ventriloquist, the superb Dead of Night (above).
VANESSA REDGRAVE
(born 1937) Michael’s elder daughter with wife Rachel Kempson (also an actor). Attracted attention playing Rosalind in a 1961 Royal Shakespeare Company production of As You Like It (left). Went on to be a key screen actor. Check out Isadora, Julia and (if you can take it) Ken Russell’s The Devils.
CORIN REDGRAVE (1939-2010) If anything even more radical than sister Vanessa, Corin, though a fine actor, devoted much of his time to running the Workers Revolutionary Party. Scary in In the Name of the Father. Charming in Four Weddings and a Funeral.
LYNN REDGRAVE (1943-2010) Vanessa’s likable and less intimidating sister. Won acclaim and an Oscar nomination for the Swinging Sixties flick Georgy Girl (left) and did good later work in films such as Kinsey and Spider.
NATASHA RICHARDSON (1963-2009) Before her untimely death in a skiing accident, Vanessa’s daughter, and wife of Liam Neeson, offered turns in Patty Hearst, The Handmaid’s Tale, The White Countess (right) and Ken Russell’s Gothic.
JEMMA REDGRAVE
(born 1965) Corin’s daughter appeared in Howards End
and Lassie (left), as well as TV shows such as Cold Blood, Bramwell and The Buddha of Suburbia. Amazingly, she has no Ken Russell credits as yet.
JOELY RICHARDSON (born 1965) Now best known for TV performances in such series as Nip/Tuck and The Tudors (right) Vanessa’s younger daughter broke through as the posh libertine in Lady Chatterley’s Lover, directed by (it’s that man again) Ken Russell

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Why does Hollywood hate the English?

MAIL ONLINE


By Christopher Hart

Last updated at 11:14 PM on 26th October 2011



Was Shakespeare a fraud, demands the sensationalist strapline to the controversial new film, Anonymous. In other words, was the genius from Stratford-upon-Avon really just a barely literate oik, serving as a cover for the true writer of those immortal plays — the sensitive and aristocratic Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford?

‘No. Next question,’ might be the answer most sensible people would give.

But alas, Hollywood has got hold of this theory almost a century after it was first propounded by one Thomas Looney, a suitably named schoolteacher from Tyneside, who spent years researching the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays.


The controversial new film, Anonymous is released tomorrow and focuses round the so called 'Shakespeare mystery'
The controversial new film, Anonymous is released tomorrow and focuses round the so called 'Shakespeare mystery'

And Looney’s is just one of numerous loony tunes surrounding our Bard.

Nowadays, it’s just as fashionable in academic circles to ask: ‘Was Shakespeare gay?’ There is even one ‘Shakespearologist’ who believes he was a woman called Amelia Bassano, who was born in London in 1569.

Radio 4, meanwhile, produced a funny April Fool pretending to have uncovered evidence that Shakespeare was French. Mon Dieu!

But none of this evident looniness has deterred the movie business from lumbering in and making a movie out of Looney’s theory.

I haven’t seen Anonymous, which opens nationwide tomorrow, and am in no position to review it, but the early indications are ominous.

Meanwhile, the good citizens of Stratford-upon-Avon are up in arms about this slight on their native son. Stratford’s Shakespeare Birthplace Trust has initiated a rather clever and sarcastic campaign — it is blanking out Shakespeare’s name on several road and pub signs in and around the town.


The director of Anonymous, Roland Emmerich, doesn¿t have the most auspicious record with regard to historical dramas
The director of Anonymous, Roland Emmerich, doesn¿t have the most auspicious record with regard to historical dramas

The point they are making is: ‘What would Stratford-upon-Avon be without that crucial Shakespeare connection but just another pleasant Midlands market town?’

It sounds like the starting idea for an Ealing comedy: an inspiring battle between a small, determinedly traditional English provincial town, proud of its world-class heritage, taking on the powerful international alliance behind Anonymous — the German film industry, Hollywood (Columbia, Sony Pictures) and several uber-luvvies who ought to have more sense.

These include the actors Derek Jacobi and Vanessa Redgrave, both of whom have done very well out of playing some of Shakespeare’s finest roles.

The thing about actors is that they’re great at acting, but not a lot else. When they start lecturing you about politics, or turning literary detective, it’s best to put your hands over your ears and hum loudly.

The director of Anonymous, Roland Emmerich, doesn’t have the most auspicious record with regard to historical dramas, having previously directed such sensitive movies as Independence Day (a sci-fi movie about an alien invasion of Earth) and The Day After Tomorrow (a sci-fi disaster film).

And we mustn’t forget Mel Gibson’s The Patriot. To widespread outrage, it was an abomination that depicted 18th-century British soldiers in America behaving much like the Nazis in Europe.


Mel Gibson in a scene from The Patriot: To widespread outrage, it was an abomination that depicted 18th-century British soldiers in America behaving much like the Nazis in Europe
Mel Gibson in a scene from The Patriot: To widespread outrage, it was an abomination that depicted 18th-century British soldiers in America behaving much like the Nazis in Europe

Of course, there is a tradition of Brit bad guys in blockbusters ranging from Anthony Hopkins’s psychopathic killer in Silence Of The Lambs to Alan Rickman’s terrorist in Die Hard. Then there was Braveheart, which portrayed English troops savagely butchering noble Scots, and Rickman’s pantomime turn as the wicked Sheriff of Nottingham trying to kill off American star Kevin Costner’s Robin Hood.

As for The Patriot, it featured a British colonel ordering an entire village to be herded into a church, which was then locked, barred and set alight. Such an event never happened in real life.

The Hollywood scriptwriter based the scene on a hideous atrocity in World War II when, in 1944, the Nazis, in retribution for the killing of an SS officer, herded all the women and children of a French village into a church and burned it — and the rest of the village — to the ground.

Does Emmerich have something against the Brits, I wonder?

His other films have tried to raise public awareness about global warming, when he is not spewing out his own carbon emissions by jetting back and forth between his three homes in Germany, New York and Los Angeles. A noted connoisseur of fine art, his private collection includes images of a crucified Christ in a Katherine Hamnett-designed T-shirt and a Princess Diana lookalike engaged in a sex act.

Who better, then, to solve the mystery of the greatest literary genius the world has ever known?

What he clearly doesn’t understand is that Shakespeare has long been entwined with this country’s sense of patriotic pride.

Dr Paul Edmondson, of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, describes the Bard as being ‘at the core of England’s cultural and historical DNA’. Surely, no other writer has ever been so acutely aware of the corruption of politics, the demonic attractions of worldly power or of how kings and generals have to operate in order to get to the top and stay there.

He would not have been at all surprised by our low opinion of politicians today — for the savage life and grisly death of Colonel Gaddafi, read Macbeth.


Vanessa Redgrave stars in the film despite having done very well out of playing some of Shakespeare¿s finest roles
Vanessa Redgrave stars in the film despite having done very well out of playing some of Shakespeare¿s finest roles

The debunking new film version about the so-called ‘Shakespeare mystery’ centres on the allegation that little is known about the real William Shakespeare. But this is nonsense. We know far more about him than we do about many of his contemporaries.

The theory behind this new film’s plot rests on sheer snobbery. How could this William Shakespeare, a mere grammar-school boy from Warwickshire who never went to university, know so much about classical mythology, Roman generals, kings and queens, and the rituals of high politics and courtly love?

The answer, of course, is his brilliant imagination. Something the sceptics don’t seem to possess. As for Shakespeare not going to university, neither did many other writers in his day.

Fellow tragedian John Webster, playwright Thomas Kyd and Shakespeare’s friend Ben Jonson finished their education the day they left grammar school (they were rather better at reading and writing than school-leavers today, I suspect).

If some of the earliest anecdotes about Shakespeare are to be believed, he was no great scholar, preferring to do a spot of deer poaching and getting his older girlfriend, Anne Hathaway, pregnant.

Yet this Warwickshire country boy with an eye for the girls is exactly the kind of man you might expect to create those wonderfully vibrant plays.


Shakespeare's name is being temporarily removed from pub and street signs to support a campaign against a new film which questions whether the Bard was 'a fraud'
Shakespeare's name is being temporarily removed from pub and street signs to support a campaign against a new film which questions whether the Bard was 'a fraud'

They breathe the air not of the library but of life itself.

Another ancient story says that Shakespeare died of a fever after a boozy night out with Jonson. Could this be true of the man who created Falstaff? Absolutely. Spot on.

But instead of accepting what is obvious to everyone else, the producers of Anonymous offer us an alternative Bard — the willowy Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford.

There is one funny story that historians have told about De Vere, which I strongly suspect will not appear in the movie. It was recorded by the incorrigible 17th-century gossip John Aubrey.

Apparently, on one occasion, De Vere made such a low, straining bow to Elizabeth I that he broke wind loudly. He was so embarrassed that he fled abroad for seven years. When he returned, hoping the incident would long since have been forgotten, he was promptly greeted by the Queen with the words: ‘My Lord, I had forgot the fart!’

All of which suggests that Edward de Vere was less of a universal genius than a monumental twit, something like an Elizabethan Mr Bean.

As for Shakespeare, I doubt he would have cared much either way about Hollywood’s latest take on his life. ‘Lord, what fools these mortals be!’ he might have laughed, just like his mischievous Puck.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2053944/Why-does-Hollywood-hate-English.html#ixzz1bw23OHpp

Monday, October 24, 2011

Review: Roland Emmerich’s ‘Anonymous’ Still Manages To Destroy Something—Its Own Authenticity

IndieWire


Combining the life-meets-art origin stories of “Ray” with the history-as-high melodrama of “Braveheart,” “Anonymous” marks a departure from director Roland Emmerich’s previous work as a purveyor of blockbuster destruction, but he still manages to destroy any credible sense of history with his speculative portrait of the man who might have been responsible for the works of William Shakespeare. Emmerich, casting his vote for the “Oxfordian” view of the playwright’s actual identity, turns what could have been an intelligent and provocative examination of fact and fiction into an overwrought and cretinous historical thriller that’s too busy disappearing into flashbacks and other frivolous digressions to bother discovering any actual truth.

Derek Jacobi, an actual Shakespearean actor who reportedly insisted on participating in the film, introduces its premise after bounding out of a rain-soaked cab onto a theater stage: although there is a popular biography for William Shakespeare, there are scholars who believe that the author of the some of the world’s most important and influential literary works was in fact someone else. From there, we’re introduced to Benjamin Jonson (Sebastian Armesto), a middling playwright on the run from Imperial guards; after hiding his mysterious, leatherbound cargo, he’s apprehended, and Robert Cecil (Edward Hogg) threatens to torture him unless he reveals its location. And then, because one flashback isn’t enough, the story dashes back in time yet again to chronicle the introduction of Jonson to Edward de Vere (Rhys Ifans), whom Emmerich and screenwriter John Orloff suggest is the actual author of Shakespeare’s plays.

Thankfully, we get yet another flashback in which we see de Vere’s upbringing as a charge of William Cecil (David Thewlis), advisor to Queen Elizabeth (Vanessa Redgrave in the Ifans era, Joely Richardson here). Although young Edward (Jamie Campbell Bower) is a prodigiously talented playwright and poet, William’s puritanical beliefs prohibit virtually all forms of artistic expression, and before long William manipulates Edward into marrying his daughter. But Edward’s gift for language instead wins the heart of Elizabeth, and the two of them fall into a torrid affair that William ends after she becomes pregnant.


Decades later, with his fortunes in ruins, Edward reaches out to Ben Jonson and agrees to pay him in exchange for putting on his plays, whose titles include “Macbeth,” “Romeo and Juliet,” and “Twelfth Night.” But when an actor named William Shakespeare begins taking the credit for the otherwise anonymous works, their increasing success attracts the attention of Robert, who conspires to take his dying father’s place at Elizabeth’s side.

As fun as it must be for Shakespeare scholars to offer their fan-fiction ideas about the identity of the playwright, it really makes almost no difference who wrote them, although it should be noted that conspiracy theories like the one Emmerich’s story is based on have probably been debunked twice as much as they’ve been supported. But “Anonymous” plays better as a soapy, costume melodrama than an expose of true events, not the least of which because Emmerich coaches his actors through some of the hammiest performances of their careers, short as some of them might turn out to be. Ifans is by far the standout among the ensemble, downplaying his usual manic energy to give an understated portrayal of an artist whose self-expression is as irrepressible as it is completely self-destructive. And Vanessa Redgrave mostly abets herself as the elder Elizabeth, whose advancing senility makes her especially susceptible to William’s, and later Robert’s lies.


Beyond his simultaneous resemblance to James McAvoy, Luke Evans and Orlando Bloom, however, Armesto is the film’s weakest link, especially since his character shoulders the largest responsibility plotwise, and yet makes none of Jonson’s actions remotely interesting. And it’s not just that he spends the whole film glowering from beneath his furrowed brow, or that he delivers every line as if he’s trying to make his voice sound deeper than it actually is; rather, it’s that he oddly lives up to the demands of the role of a playwright with no identity by failing to provide his character with one, so that when Jonson is supposed to come alive and fulfill his destiny at the end of the film, we don’t believe it, or care, for one second.

Meanwhile, as almost all of the other male characters are handsome and heroic or sniveling and unpleasant, Emmerich seems to have cast from a pool of actors who are all best known for replacing one another in films, because they mostly look alike without offering anything that’s too unique or different (Xavier Samuel, Sam Reid, and Jamie Campbell Bower are virtually indistinguishable.) But again, it’s Emmerich who deals the film’s death blow, not just because he cast these totally bland, pretty actors, but because he had them pitch their performances at somewhere slightly above the level of a soap opera. It’s actually a little sad that Edward Hogg didn’t have an actual moustache to twirl, because his hunch-backed malevolence ranks as one of the most cartoonish performances of the year – including the ones in “The Smurfs.”


Orloff’s screenplay, on the other hand, is a disastrously overcomplicated affair, partially because of its wormhole of flashbacks and partially because it frequently overshadows the “author’s identity” question with distracting, melodramatic digressions. For example, it admittedly could have been explained somewhere in the film, but why would Edward de Vere pick Ben Jonson to be the one to stage his plays, if Jonson wasn’t going to take the credit? Jonson is the instrumental figure in concealing/ revealing Shakespeare’s identity, but instead of making him more than a messenger, he spends the first third of the film denying responsibility for the plays, the second trying to manage Shakespeare the actor’s omnivorous greed, and then the third resenting that he can’t get either his own or Shakespeare’s plays produced. And to pay off his many scenes of boozy introspection and professional frustration? Orloff writes a tearful scene in which Jonson confesses his abject adoration of de Vere’s plays, which one supposes might have worked if Armesto hadn’t ruined it with his basso profundo blubbering.

Additionally, there are several other instances in which Orloff and Emmerich indulge in the melodrama and moral outrage of an era where playwriting is forbidden, but it seems like each of them was designed for the audience to go, “Oooh, burn,” rather than react with any sort of emotional identification. Moreover, Orloff contextualizes each play in the story as de Vere’s reaction to some new personal or political development. Like a musical biopic in which a singer-songwriter suffers from some horrible experience and goes, “You know, that would make a good song,” “Anonymous” posits that Shakesepeare’s plays were inspired and expressly designed to incite the theatergoing rabble to social outrage, if not full-fledged revolution. And who knows – maybe they were. But the combination of personal, romantic, artistic, social, and political ideas in a film that fails to lay its bag of snakes out straight is not too much of a good thing, it’s just plain bad.



Ultimately, “Anonymous” may be a fully-accurate depiction of the life and times of Edward de Vere, and a long-overdue expose of the true identity of the author of Shakespeare’s plays. But it fails on its own merits as a messy biopic and even messier historical epic whose authenticity becomes irrelevant when its execution is incompetent. Especially since the film wants to offer the audience all of the convenient and conventional payoffs of a well-told story, not just an accurately-told one: while one of the piece’s villains prevails, his movie punishment is to become advisor to a king that absolutely loves Shakespeare. Get it? After all of that, he’s going to have to watch the plays that he hates! In the meantime, our punishment is having to watch this terrible movie. Unless Shakespeare is something that helps you decide whether to be or not to be, skip “Anonymous.” [D]

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Rhys Ifans from "Notting Hill"

 


I’ve been a fan of Rhys Ifans since watching him steal scenes from Hugh Grant in “Notting Hill,” and (as an imported Euro-kicker) in “The Replacements.”


He’s done period pieces (“Vanity Fair,” “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”) and comedies, straight dramas (Enduring Love,” with Daniel Craig, is his best) and big budget films.

He had a small but crucial role, as Luna Lovegood’s journalist dad in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.” But his immersion in big budget blockbusters came from the film we will see him in next year. Ifans, 44, is Dr. Curt Connors, “The Lizard,” in “The Amazing Spider Man.” He’s the main villain.

“I dipped my toe into ‘Harry Potter,’ but I put my whole body into ‘Spider-Man.’ It was a thrill to work with Marc Webb [ of "(500) Days of Summer). He's like Roland Emmerich (his "Anonymous" director, famed for spectacles like "Independence Day" and "2012"). He's doing blockbusters, but he has an 'indie' heart, an indie character-oriented sensibility.

"That was a very telling thing on the set. We knew it would be action-packed and epic and all that. But Marc made sure that the human dynamic was paramount, and that’s going to elevate the film possibly to a place that the other [ Spider Man] films got to.”

Like everyone else, Ifans was blown away by Emmerich’s painstaking and spare-no-expense efforts to recreate Elizabethan England for “Anonymous.”

“Often period films have budgets that keep us from seeing London in full. There are several helicopter-like shots which Roland, the master of CGI, made sure our film has. It liberates the film to see that. I really got a sense of London, a very old city that becomes a character in the film, as it was in Elizabethan times.


“Roland does paint with a big brush. But what separates him from blockbuster film contemporaries is his attention to the emotional dynamics between characters. It’s FORENSIC. Very detailed. In his films, the strand you see running across these huge canvases, through these huge universes he creates is that they’re populated by very real human relationships. That’s the ace in his deck of cards.”
One oddball question I posed to Ifans was the connection between playing an artist in the shadows — he is Edward De Vere, whom “Anonymous” says is the “true author” of Shakespeare’s plays — and the last thing we heard him in, as narrator of “Exit Through the Gift Shop,” the documentary about underground artist Banksy.

“It’s purely by chance, that. But there is high irony in that I guess Banksy is that rare artist working today in near total anonymity is Banksy. Perhaps there was some sort of subliminal marriage there that I made.”

“Anonymous” opens Oct. 28, nationwide. More from