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.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.