Where There's a Will, There's an Ed

"Anonymous" (2011) tells the story of Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, whom most people consider the likeliest author of the plays of William Shakespeare.  Well, unless you're one of those benighted people who actually believes William Shakespeare wrote the plays.

As you probably know, the "true identity" of William Shakespeare--or "William Shakespeare"--has occupied a certain subset of scholars for at least the last 700 years.  Which is surprising, as Shakespeare's plays were only written some 400 years ago.  The "mystery" for those who question the plays' authorship revolves around the question of how an actor with little formal education--"small Latin and less Greek," in Ben Jonson's memorable phrase--could possibly have composed the plays, sonnets, and other writings universally acclaimed as the greatest body of work in English literature.  In addition to de Vere, other possible Shakespeares have included Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe (who at least was a playwright, which qualification I think allowed him to be played by Rupert Everett in an earlier movie, which, I suppose, is something), Sir Francis Drake, Queen Elizabeth, Cervantes (I am not making this up), and others.

For what it's worth, I think (A) William Shakespeare wrote the plays of William Shakespeare, and (B) it ultimately doesn't matter. The important fact is that the plays exist, regardless of who actually wrote them: It's not like anyone's around to collect royalties.  But as I watched this movie, I found myself getting more and more annoyed.  And I'm not sure my annoyance was simply a response to a mediocre film.

And it is mediocre.  And quite pedantic.  Not surprising, really, considering it was directed by Roland Emmerich: The man made an alien invasion pedantic!  (Come to think of it, Bill Pullman's speech in "Independence Day" (1996) was reminiscent of "St. Crispin Day" in Henry V.  Maybe Shakespeare's plays were actually written by Roland Emmerich!  Or Bill Pullman?  Anywho. . . .)

The movie portrays Edward de Vere (Rhys Ifans) as a true Renaissance man--and not just because he was a man in the, um, Renaissance.  According to the film, de Vere was a statesman, a royal confidante (more on this later), and an adventurer who spoke every language in the world and dashed off the Shakespearean canon in his spare time.  Indeed, the Earl of Oxford had barely reached puberty by the time he had completed A Midsummer Night's Dream, which he presented in a private performance for the queen (in which he, of course, played Puck).  Furthermore--again, according to the film--Edward was also the secret lover and illegitimate son (eww) of Queen Elizabeth I.  It's OK, though, 'cause neither of them knew about their mother-son relationship when they hooked up.

Yeah, OK, it's still "eww."

Meanwhile, the actual William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) is not only NOT a gifted playwright; he's an illiterate, boorish blackmailer, who was also behind the murder of Christopher Marlowe.

Not that de Vere is perfect.  For one thing, he insists on writing poetry!  Which is just not done!  At least, not in the Puritan home in which he is brought up.  Poetry and plays, you see, are the works of Satan, and no good will come of them.  As if we needed any further proof of drama's satanic nature, the rebellious de Vere, in a fit of passion, actually stabs someone who was spying on him while he was writing.  Stabs him through a curtain!  So. . . that's where that came from.

The film makes a point of showing us how incidents in Edward's life inspired famous moments in Shakespeare's plays: Richard III is conceived as a hunchback as a slap at Edward's tormentor William Cecil; Romeo and Juliet's meeting at a masquerade echoes the evening of Edward's first dalliance with the Virgin (as if) Queen.  You get the point, though: Edward had to have written Shakespeare's plays, 'cause the plays correspond to events in Edward's life.  This, by the way, is the "evidence" offered by those who support de Vere's Shakespearean credentials: "How," they ask, "could William Shakespeare have written so accurately about life at Court, for example, without having been a nobleman himself?"

It's a fair question.  Writers tend to write about what they know; and, similarly, they cannot write about something they know nothing of.  Thus, since Shakespeare was presumably not a regular attendee of Court functions, there is no possible way he could have written accurately about such functions!  Well, unless of course he asked somebody.  Had research and/or the personal interview not been invented in the 16th century?

Anyway, back to the movie.  One of the big problems with the film is that, ultimately, we are left with no plausible reason why Edward de Vere would not claim authorship of the plays.  Yes, while growing up, de Vere was, as mentioned above, in a Puritan household that frowned on poetry.  But that wasn't enough to keep him from writing, which suggests he had no particular belief in the whole poetry-is-satanic-and-will-lead-to-my-eternal-damnation argument.  And even if we assume the theater is disreputable--as, indeed, we can hardly argue with--this wouldn't seem to be enough to keep Oxford from revealing his authorship.  How disreputable could theater have been if the Queen herself was an ardent enthusiast?

None of this, though, explains my ultimate annoyance with the film.  Here's what did:

In addition to the secret authorship story, the film also delves into Elizabethan politics, specifically the question of who would succeed to the throne upon the death of the childless (unless we count the illegitimate son born from the incestuous liaison with Oxford--have I mentioned, eww---but since no one can know of this bastard, it's a moot point--never mind).  Elizabeth plans to hand the throne to King James of Scotland.  This does not sit well with Edward de Vere, who wants to see the crown passed to the Earl of Essex--keeping England English, if you will.  Of course, he fails, and James--who is portrayed as an effeminate fop--becomes king.

So, let me see if I can articulate this properly: This film serves as a mouthpiece for those who would challenge the legitimate claims to authority of a great and gifted man.  Why?  Because, to the defenders of the status quo, his claims to fame, to prestige, to esteem simply can not be true.  How could this lowly son of a glover possess the intellect, the skill, the unearthly gifts that would allow him to scale the highest of heights?  It's not possible!  That would be like the mixed-race son of a Kenyan economist and a Kansas farmgirl becoming President of the United States!  Someone must be lying about something!

Reading too much into things?  Maybe, but throw in the political plot--the idea that a vote "against" de Vere is effectively a vote against England--and the movie really starts to look like a piece of Birther propaganda.  If we don't defend our true cultural patrimony, the barbarians--the effete, lisping barbarians--will seize the Capitol before we know it.