Skip to main content

Put that in one of your plays!

Anonymous
(2011)

Roland Emmerich tends to get a rough ride for his endless appetite for lowbrow, overblown action/disaster fare. But now, his chance to prove the critics wrong! I haven't minded his movies too much, even the hilariously stupid-by-his-own-standards 10,000 BC. He deserves some credit for being one of the few directors working today who shows an understanding of geography in action movies, and also one of the few who has an eye for lending special effects a sense of physicality. If only he could bring that acumen to a decent script.

John Landis and Terry Gilliam (who has discussed the director in the past, mainly with regard to the debt his style owes to Spielberg) riffed on his latest film in the excerpt below. Landis also singles out John Cusack outdriving the San Andreas fault in 2012, and it is indeed one of the funniest, most ludicrous scenes in recent memory (anyone, Landis included, wondering how unaware Emmerich was of his mirth-inducing potential should note the old lady Cusack tries to overtake).

As for Anonymous, visually it's as sumptuous as you'd expect. And as a conspiracy movie it is engaging, if "kitchen sink" in trying to trace as much political intrigue of the Elizabethan court as possible back to "real" Shakespeare's door. Or, rather, the Earl of Oxford's. But the script comes up short in a number of respects, chief of which is a lack of wit. Indeed, the results are sometimes unintentionally hilarious, such as Oxford's wife's scornful pleasure in the misfortune of her husband. "Put that in one of your plays!" she mocks. Shakespeare in Love worked so well because it weaved the playwright's work humorously and intelligently into its plot; a love of the material shone through in the characters and dialogue. John Orloff's script for Anonymous is populated with characters who lack sparkle and erudition. As a result Emmerich must rely on his cast to breathe life into the story. Orloff also falls victim to a common failing in these sorts of films, imbuing characters with banal foreknowledge of the enduring legacy of the artist's work.

I don't know a great deal about the Oxfordian versus Stratfordian theories on the authorship of the plays, but I agree in principal with Orloff's justification for historical inaccuracy/fudging in the film.

Ultimately, Shakespeare himself was our guide. The Shakespeare histories are not really histories. They're dramas. He compresses time. He adds characters that have been dead by the time the events are occurring. He'll invent characters out of whole cloth, like [Sir John] Falstaff in the history plays. First and foremost it's a drama, and just like Shakespeare we're creating drama.

It is rather setting yourself up for failure to put yourself in the same ballpark of success with approach as the Bard, however. What is most important is how well the created drama works. While the main plot threads involving drunken actor William Shakespeare assuming the identity of author of the plays and machinations over who will inherit the throne from Elizabeth are engaging, the flashbacks to the relationship between the younger Oxford and Elizabeth stumble. This element was at Emmerich's instigation, who felt they were needed to give a grounding for both characters. I suspect there could have been better ways to achieve this, but the problem is more that there too prevalent and add too little. There's also rather too much of Ben Johnson raging over what a tosser Shakespeare is being. We got the message quite quickly.

Thesps-wise, Rhys Ifans is very good as Oxford. He's been cast against type to an extent, but the actor's innate unconventionality is well-served playing a more refined character than he's used to. In contrast, doe-eyed Jamie Campbell Bower is a vacant presence as the younger Oxford. He's as miscast as he was as Arthur in Camelot. Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson are affecting as Elizabeth of different ages, but the former is most compelling. Rafe Spall's unremittingly loutish Shakespeare is at times quite amusing, but Spall plays these oafish types so frequently that I'm beginning to think he may just be playing himself. A number of relative newcomers also turned in accomplished performances. Sebastian Armesto gives it his best as Ben Johnson even if the character is one-note at times. All-but stealing the film is Edward Hogg as hunchbacked Robert Cecil. He reminded me slightly of Christopher Guest's Count Rugen in The Princess Bride, both in manner and appearance. Oh, and Derek Jacobi bookends the film. Seemingly as himself. If Derek Jacobi tells you something about Shakespeare, it must be true.




Popular posts from this blog

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

I don’t think Wimpys still exist.

Last Night in Soho (2021) (SPOILERS) Last Night in Soho is a cautionary lesson in one’s reach extending one’s grasp. It isn’t that Edgar Wright shouldn’t attempt to stretch himself, it’s simply that he needs the self-awareness to realise which moves are going to throw his back out and leave him in a floundering and enfeebled heap on the studio floor. Wright’s an uber-geek, one with a very specific comfort zone, and there’s no shame in that. He evidently was shamed, though, hence this response to criticisms of a lack of maturity and – obviously – lack of versatility with female characters. Last Night in Soho goes broke for woke, and in so doing exposes his new clothes in the least flattering light. Because Edgar is in no way woke, his attempts to prove his progressive mettle lead to a lurid, muddled mess, one that will satisfy no one. Well, perhaps his most ardent fans, but no one else.

It looks like a digital walkout.

Free Guy (2021) (SPOILERS) Ostensibly a twenty-first century refresh of The Truman Show , in which an oblivious innocent realises his life is a lie, and that he is simply a puppet engineered for the entertainment of his creators/controllers/the masses, Free Guy lends itself to similar readings regarding the metaphysical underpinnings of our reality, of who sets the paradigm and how conscious we are of its limitations. But there’s an additional layer in there too, a more insidious one than using a Hollywood movie to “tell us how it really is”.

The voice from the outer world who will lead them to paradise.

Dune (2021) (SPOILERS) For someone who has increasingly dug himself a science-fiction groove, Denis Villeneuve isn’t terribly imaginative. Dune looks perfect, in the manner of the cool, clinical, calculating and above all glacial rendering of concept design and novel cover art in the most doggedly literal fashion. And that’s the problem. David Lynch’s edition may have had its problems, but it was inimitably the product of a mind brimming with sensibility. Villeneuve’s version announces itself as so determinedly faithful to Frank Herbert, it needs two movies to tell one book, and yet all it really has to show for itself are gargantuan vistas.

Give poor, starving Gurgi munchings and crunchings.

The Black Cauldron (1985) (SPOILERS) Dark Disney? I guess… Kind of . I don’t think I ever got round to seeing this previously. The Fox and the Hound , sure. Basil the Great Mouse Detective , most certainly. Even Oliver and Company , so I wasn’t that selective. But I must have missed The Black Cauldron , the one that nearly broke Disney, for the same reason everyone else did. But what reason was that? Perhaps nothing leaping out about it, when the same summer kids could see The Goonies , or Back to the Future , or Pee Wee’s Big Adventure . It seemed like a soup of other, better-executed ideas and past Disney movies, stirred up in a cauldron and slopped out into an environment where audiences now wanted something a touch more sophisticated.

Monster nom nom?

The Suicide Squad (2021) (SPOILERS) This is what you get from James Gunn when he hasn’t been fed through the Disney rainbow filter. Pure, unadulterated charmlessness, as if he’s been raiding his deleted Twitter account for inspiration. The Suicide Squad has none of the “heart” of Guardians of Galaxy , barely a trace of structure, and revels in the kind of gross out previously found in Slither ; granted an R rating, Gunn revels in this freedom with juvenile glee, but such carte blanche only occasionally pays off, and more commonly leads to a kind of playground repetition. He gets to taunt everyone, and then kill them. Critics applauded; general audiences resisted. They were right to.

It becomes easier each time… until it kills you.

The X-Files 4.9: Terma Oh dear. After an engaging opener, the second part of this story drops through the floor, and even the usually spirited Rob Bowman can’t save the lethargic mess Carter and Spotnitz make of some actually pretty promising plot threads.

Three. Two. One. Lift with your neck.

Red Notice  (2021) (SPOILERS) Red Notice rather epitomises Netflix output. Not the 95% that is dismissible, subgrade filler no one is watching but is nevertheless churned out as original “content”. No, this would be the other, more select tier constituting Hollywood names and non-negligible budgets. Most such fare still fails to justify its existence in any way, shape or form, singularly lacking discernible quality control or “studio” oversight. Albeit, one might make similar accusations of a selection of legit actual studio product too, but it’s the sheer consistency of unleavened movies that sets Netflix apart. So it is with Red Notice . Largely lambasted by the critics, in much the manner of, say 6 Underground or Army of the Dead , it is in fact, and just like those, no more and no less than okay.

Oh hello, loves, what year is it?

Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021) (SPOILERS) Simu Lui must surely be the least charismatic lead in a major motion picture since… er, Taylor Lautner? He isn’t aggressively bad, like Lautner was/is, but he’s so blank, so nondescript, he makes Marvel’s super-spiffy new superhero Shang-Chi a superplank by osmosis. Just looking at him makes me sleepy, so it’s lucky Akwafina is wired enough for the both of them. At least, until she gets saddled with standard sidekick support heroics and any discernible personality promptly dissolves. And so, Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings continues Kevin Feige’s bold journey into wokesense, seemingly at the expense of any interest in dramatically engaging the viewer.

What about the panties?

Sliver (1993) (SPOILERS) It must have seemed like a no-brainer. Sharon Stone, fresh from flashing her way to one of the biggest hits of 1992, starring in a movie nourished with a screenplay from the writer of one of the biggest hits of 1992. That Sliver is one Stone’s better performing movies says more about how no one took her to their bosom rather than her ability to appeal outside of working with Paul Verhoeven. Attempting to replicate the erotic lure of Basic Instinct , but without the Dutch director’s shameless revelry and unrepentant glee (and divested of Michael Douglas’ sweaters), it flounders, a stupid movie with vague pretensions to depth made even more stupid by reshoots that changed the killer’s identity and exposed the cluelessness of the studio behind it. Philip Noyce isn’t a stupid filmmaker, of course. He’s a more-than-competent journeyman when it comes to Hollywood blockbuster fare ( Clear and Present Danger , Salt ) also adept at “smart” smaller pict