"Anonymous" (Columbia Pictures)

Was Shakespeare a fraud? It’s not really a question in the film “Anonymous.” Within the first few minutes, the film tells audience that the Shakespeare they know is a base illiterate actor, who enjoys fame and wealth with works written by another man. The real Shakespeare is Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.

 As an aristocrat involved in the center of political struggles during the later years of Elizabeth I’s reign, both his upbringing and his position don’t allow him to pursue his real calling—writing, so he wants to publish his works under another writer’s name. His first choice is Ben Johnson, but Johnson refuses. Shakespeare then steals the opportunity.

The main plot is focused on the political struggle over the succession to the throne, which gives the film more drama and larger context. This setting can add color to characters, but can also impair the characterization because of the complexity and drama of the story itself. Anonymous falls in the latter most of the times.

First of all, the film fails to explain why Edward actively seeks to involve himself in the succession struggle. For his affection for the queen? Or to help his illegitimate son the Earl of Southampton, who is the firm supporter of the Earl of Essex? Maybe, but the film doesn’t really provide any clue. Since Edward is supposed to be a man who is not passionate about politics at all and only cares about writing, it is not convincing that he is so actively involved in all the “political thriller” by his own choice. Robert Cecil blames him for doing no contribution to state affairs at all and wasting his life in art and writing—it’s largely true. So why he turns to be an active player all of a sudden? 

Secondly, what on earth does writing mean to Edward? He tells his wife that he can’t stop writing because the voice inside him keeps torturing him. It’s the only part in the film illustrating the importance of writing in his life. The rest of the time, audiences now and then see him sitting in the balcony of the theater, anxiously twisting his fingers and saying “power of words” like a control freak. Since writing is the only thing he has passion to pursue, such handling makes the character plain, or even dull.

On the other hand, he tells Johnson that “all art is political, otherwise it is just decoration.” But such belief is poorly supported by his actions. How is his plays political? By serving as the tools to control mobs? By mocking Robert in “Richard III,” or by writing his romance with the queen in “Romeo and Juliet?” It would be unforgivable oversimplification of Shakespeare’s works, which makes the film even weaker for it’s supposed to be inspired by Shakespeare’s works. 

It’s fine if the director wants to depict Edward and the queen as Romeo and Juliet, but their story must be as touching as Shakepeare’s story in the first place. And it is clearly not the case. There is some drama when the queen shouts at Cecil that she loves Edward, but not powerful. Their story is more like an aventure than a love story. Why do they love each other in the first place? Because the queen is a passionate unconventional woman appreciating Edward’s writing and Edward began to love her when he was a child? It might be a good story, but the film fails to make it. And it makes the characterization of both protagonists frail.

Yes, frail. It’s the word for the handling of most characters and their relations. Edward seems to love his son, but there is hardly any depiction of their relationship. And Edward’s wife—she could have been an excellent character to make the whole film more appealing and Edward more vivid. She loves him at first, and tries hard to love him for years, but at last she throws vicious words on him. How has it happened? Her dull character does not support the tension between Edward and her.

Another problem with the film is its confusing timeline. The story jumps back and forth again and again. Although the director does a good job to make it understandable, it’s really disturbing and it doen’t make the story more compelling.

Despite these problems, “Anonymous” still presents a good story. The plot is atrractive, and the delicate costumes, vivid setting and the-- to some extent dark atmosphere photography all help the storytelling.

Reach reporter Kay Chinn here.