Roland Emmerich is best known for destroying landmarks in disaster movies like “Independence Day” and “Godzilla,” occasionally deciding to make a more serious project. Why he does this no one knows.
His most recent effort was “Stonewall,” an utter atrocity to be discussed at a later date, but before that was his cinematic representation of raw ignorance: “Anonymous.”
“Anonymous” presents the argument of anti-Stratfordians, who believe that William Shakespeare did not write the works attributed to him. There have been many proposed candidates in his place, such as Christopher Marlowe and Sir Francis Bacon. But “Anonymous” takes the so-called Oxfordian position that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, wrote the plays.
The leaps in logic and the theory the movie takes to justify its position are simply astounding. Not only does it allege that William Shakespeare, possibly the greatest playwright in the history of the English language, was just pseudonym for an earl who thought such common writing was beneath him, but it also makes it seem like this is the only explanation.
One of the main points of the anti-Stratfordian argument is that Shakespeare, a glover’s son, could not have written plays so deeply intertwined with higher classes. Derek Jacobi, noted Shakespearean actor and anti-Stratfordian, plays the narrator in the film’s framing device.
Both he and the film blatantly overlook the idea that there is no need for someone to have experienced something to write about it. J.K. Rowling never went to wizard school. C.S. Lewis did not fight Tilda Swinton alongside Aslan, a.k.a Lion Jesus.
Still, the theory has persisted throughout the years. Sigmund Freud was a key developer of the Oxfordian branch of this theory, which the film hangs its hat on. He deduced from reading “Hamlet” that it could only have been written from someone who underwent a recent paternal loss. But since Shakespeare’s father died well after “Hamlet” was completed, Freud searched for someone who had suffered through that earlier. Enter Edward de Vere, whose life also had some parallels with Hamlet.
Freud declared that de Vere had to have written “Hamlet,” since it mirrored his life so well. Emmerich conveyed this in “Annonymous” in the most utterly absurd fashion.
Christopher Marlowe, who was dead when “Hamlet” first opened in real life, is a character in the so-called historical film. He then sees the play and connects the dots to de Vere. He goes to the tower to report Shakespeare for being a fraud, but before he can, Shakespeare kills him.
It’s difficult to comprehend how little sense any of this makes. Just to round things off, Emmerich even decides to drag Queen Elizabeth I through the mud as well. Though she is famous for being the Virgin Queen, Emmerich has none of that in his movie. In the “Anonymous” universe, Elizabeth sleeps with so many men and has so many bastard children that she can’t keep track of them. Shockingly, one of them is our protagonist Edward, who ends up getting friendly for her as well.
No, this is not something Emmerich just dreamed up out of the blue. This is more or less what anti-Stratfordians actually believe. Sure, he added some dramatic license here and there, but it’s virtually an exact reflection of actual beliefs. One must wonder then why Emmerich thought this was a valid viewpoint to push on the viewing public, since the authorship question of Shakespeare is little more than an exercise.
It’s really rare for a movie to so efficiently defile this many historical figures. But for Roland Emmerich, where there’s a will, there’s a way.
