Skip to main content

The Premiere of Anonymous





Yes it has finally happened! The movie Anonymous has had its World Premiere on Wednesday, September 7 during the 15th Annual Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference at Concordia University in Portland, Oregon. (Actually the "official" premiere will be next Sunday at the Toronto Film Festival). I was very happy to be able to represent the Oberon Group at this auspicious occasion.

Over 200 people (some of them Conference Registrants and others Concordia students or having other associations with the University) packed the Auditorium at the Portland Art Museum.

There was an introduction of the film by the director, Roland Emmerich (yes, he was there in person) and then the movie began in front of a hushed, but excited crowd.

I will say that the movie is quite fantastic. The acting and cinematography are among the best I've seen. Can you say "Oscar material"? I can.

As we have been led to believe from prior rumors and the movie trailer (some of what is in the trailer is not actually in the move though), the movie does concentrate heavily on the Essex Rebellion and the idea that the Earl of Southampton is the bastard son of Elizabeth and Edward de Vere. There is also the idea that de Vere himself was a son of Elizabeth, but it is not given any real importance. It is almost a throwaway point near the end of the movie. There are a few surprises as well which I won't spoil for you now. The characterizations of Edward de Vere as a man with a "tortured soul" and William Shakespeare as an almost incompetent illiterate actor without much of a conscience are first-rate.

I think you will all love it. I also think that the movie will on the whole be a good thing for the Oxfordian movement. Certainly, Stratfordians will have a field day nitpicking all of the liberties that Emmerich has taken with history and "received wisdom", but they will not be able to stop people from finding this a great story and wanting to know more about it. That's where all of us come in. I hope we will be ready for it.

Yes, there are quite a few "historical inaccuracies" in the movie which were taken in order to "tell the story" (see some remarks by Emmerich later in this post). We must all realize that this movie IS a story (the movie even begins with Derek Jacobi addressing a large faceless audience in a theater and briefly recounting the "accepted" story of Shakespeare from Stratford and then saying, "But let me tell you another story, a darker story..." as the modern theater dissolves and we find ourselves in London in 1599 or thereabouts).

I'm reminded of the liberties taken with history in the movie Shakespeare in Love. But then the traditional scholars did not find much to complain about. After all, this story worked in their favor, "fleshing out" Shakespeare and offering a possible solution to the appalling lack of any personality or substance to the accepted Shakespeare of Stratford.

Anonymous is a whole different "kettle of fish". This movie, while still offering only ONE possible story about the creation of the plays written under the name of Shakespeare (or more commonly Shake-Speare), flies in the face of "received wisdom" and will be a real problem for the "Establishment". To paraphrase James Shapiro during his recent presentation in Stratford, Ontario (see prior blog entries for more information): Emmerich has been previously known as a director of disaster movies and this one (Anonymous) will also be a disaster.

After the movie was over (it's about two hours long) there was a panel discussion with Roland Emmerich, Professors Daniel Wright (English Department) and Joel Davis (History Department) of Concordia University, and Hank Whittemore (author of The Monument).

Of course, Emmerich's remarks were the most interesting. He admitted that he was drawn to make this movie because he knew it would make a great story. Only later did he realize that he was stepping into a "hot bed" of controversy among Oxfordians, not to mention the "orthodox" academics. He knows that he was playing with history, but defended it in much the same way Shakespeare would have defended his own use of history: We can only offer our own interpretation of history in order to tell the story that we want to tell. In his words, "Life is messy. Film is more organized".

Emmerich admits that he didn't know much about the Authorship Question when he began working on the movie, but he has since been "converted" to Oxfordianism (to use the religious language that has sprung up around this issue). Some of the actors in the movie (such as Rhys Ifans and Vanessa Redgrave) also admitted to Emmerich that they were now very interested in the issue while other actors "just didn't care". Of course, the movie does have Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance, both already confirmed Antistratfordians.

The movie is scheduled for general release on October 28, although there may be other opportunities to see it earlier. I'm sure that everyone will want to see it as soon as possible.

By the way, that is Emmerich himself in the picture above alongside yours truly. He is signing two copies of the official theater poster for the movie which Linda Theil was able to obtain (somehow) and which I brought to Portland for this purpose.

A new chapter in our quest to more fully understand Shakespeare has begun.

Popular posts from this blog

What's a popp'rin' pear?

James Wheaton reported yesterday in the Jackson Citizen Patriot that the Michigan Shakespeare Festival high school tour of Romeo and Juliet was criticized for inappropriate content -- " So me take issue with sexual innuendoes in Michigan Shakespeare Festival’s High School Tour performances of ‘Romeo & Juliet’" : Western [High School] parent Rosie Crowley said she was upset when she heard students laughing about sexual content in the play afterwards. Her son didn’t attend the performance Tuesday because of another commitment, she said.  “I think the theater company should have left out any references that were rated R,” Crowley said. “I would say that I’ve read Shakespeare, and what I was told from the students, I’ve never read anything that bad.”  She said she objected to scenes that involved pelvic thrusting and breast touching and to a line in which Mercutio makes suggestive comments to Romeo after looking up the skirt of a female. The problem with cutting out the naug

Winkler lights the match

by Linda Theil When asked by an interviewer why all the experts disagree with her on the legitimacy of the Shakespeare authorship question, journalist and author Elizabeth Winkler  calmly replied, "You've asked the wrong experts." * With that simple declaration Winkler exploded the topic of Shakespearean authorship forever. Anti-Stratfordians need no smoking gun, no convincing narrative, no reason who, how, when, or why because within the works lies the unassailable argument: Shakespeare's knowledge. Ask the lawyers. Ask the psychologists. Ask the librarians. Ask the historians. Ask the dramaturges. Ask the mathematicians. Ask the Greek scholars. Ask the physicists. Ask the astronomers. Ask the courtiers. Ask the bibliophiles. Ask the Italians. Ask the French. Ask the Russians. Ask the English. Ask everyone. Current academic agreement on a bevy of Shakespearean collaborators springs from an unspoken awareness of how much assistance the Stratfordian presumptive would h

Dudley nails it to the door

Michael Dudley author of The Shakespeare Authorship Question and Philosphy: Knowledge, Rhetoric, Identity (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2023) Michael Dudley views his vocation of librarian at the University of Manitoba with dialectic rigor. "Librarianship has a duty to inform democracy," he said in Kathryn Sharpe's virtual bookclub on April 27, 2024. Dudley discussed his new book The Shakespeare Authorship Question and Philosophy: Knowledge, Rhetoric, Identity published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing last fall. Update 08/21/24 Dudley's book is also available as an ebook from   Google Play . In SAQ and Philosophy Dudley uses the hammer of logic to nail his accusations against the barricaded door of the Shakespeare citadel. "The question of Shakespeare's authorship is a malformed debate practiced in an unethical fashion," Dudley said. When asked why his book is important, Dudley said: "What sets my book apart from others on the authorship quest