Anonymous (Columbia Pictures, 2011)

As Derek Jacobi, the narrator or “chorus” of Roland Emmerich’s new film Anonymous, tells us, little evidence remains of the life of the playwright called William Shakespeare. The film begins with Jacobi addressing a contemporary audience in a Broadway theater about this issue, and then shifts to London at the turn of the seventeenth century, where his imaginative tale plays out. Jacobi/Emmerich’s tale is not history, but an imagined story based on some historical facts which, as my colleague Constance commented, might best be considered a kind of “fan fiction” regarding the theatrical world of early modern England.

Emmerich is clearly of the “Oxfordian” school, which posits that the works of “William Shakespeare” may have actually been penned by Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, an Elizabethan courtier—while “Stratfordians” maintain that the actor and theater shareholder named William Shakespeare, originally from Stratford-Upon-Avon, did indeed pen the works which bear his name. William Shakespeare was the son of a glover, and one claim Oxfordians make is that a man from a middle-class background would not have the erudition to create the wondrous works of “Shakespeare.” However, humanist education in English grammar schools of the late 16th-century provided boys from the middle class with a curriculum based on Latin classics, read in the original language—those works upon which the plays and narrative poems of Shakespeare are largely based. Furthermore, the plays of Shakespeare, while artistically brilliant, are not particularly “erudite,” when compared to those of his contemporary Ben Jonson, who throws around classical allusions like nobody’s business…and who was, incidentally, the son of a bricklayer, who famously teased that William Shakespeare had “little Latin and less Greek.”

Interestingly, Ben Jonson is the central character of Emmerich’s film, to whom the “Shakespeare secret” is entrusted. This would help to explain why Jonson wrote the dedicatory poem in the 1623 Folio collection of Shakespeare’s plays, which maintains that William Shakespeare was indeed the author of these works—helping perpetuate the big coverup. While Jonson himself was quite a colorful character, it’s a shame that his personality is not at all developed by Emmerich; in the film, he is simply a frustrated playwright put into a tough position, about whom we really know very little.

Other characters in the film are more colorful and more developed, but some, like Vanessa Redgrave’s rather dithering elderly Elizabeth, are somewhat annoying; others, like the Queen’s advisor Robert Cecil, remain charicatures with uncomplicated motivations. The fact that William Shakespeare is played to be, not only a simple actor and no playwright at all, but also an absolute lowlife, is regrettable. No spoilers here, but the plot also becomes so convoluted by the end that it’s ludicrous. Overall, the film’s dialogue is not strong, but it does improve from the beginning to the end.

Overall, this is an entertaining story which, with all its gorgeous clothing and dashing young courtiers, is visually appealing. Don’t take it too seriously, and you’ll have fun.

Overall grade: C+

reviewed by Rachel

Shakespeare, The World as Stage - Bill Bryson (2007)

Bryson himself begins this book by asking, "why another book on Shakespeare?" His answer was something like, "it doesn't, but this series does," for Bryson is writing for the "Eminent Lives" series of biographies. Given, however, that the book was written and published, the question that you, the discerning reader, must ask yourself is this: why should I read this book on Shakespeare rather than one of the seven thousand (by Bryson's count) other books on Shakespeare that are in the Library of Congress? I'll give you four reasons.

First, it's shorter than many of them. This is the case for a couple of reasons. Bryson is writing for a general rather than academic audience, and is thus engaging in a sort of general overview rather than attempting to prove a point. He is also attempting to stick mostly to what is actually known, rather than engaging is speculation. Since what is actually is known about Shakespeare's life is very little the book is somewhat short, 196 pages. Finally, it is a broad general overview with a select bibliography for those who want more detail on any given point, thus he doesn't go into great detail on most points.

Second, Bryson writes well, very well. Many of the other books are written by people who are something else (scholar, teacher, actor, crank) first and writers second. Bryson is a writer first. The result is a very readable and accessible book. Felicitous phrases abound, "Facts are surprisingly delible things ..." "There is not a more tempting void in literary history, nor more eager hands to fill it." are two examples. This is not to say that there are not some other excellent books on Shakespeare written by excellent writers, some of whom have extensive academic credentials! (Anthony Burgess comes immediately to mind.)

Third, Bryson provides a good, simple overview of a lot of Shakespeare scholarship, even when it is "5 percent fact and 95% conjecture," as Bryson quotes an unnamed Shakespeare scholar on the subject of Shakespeare biographies. This provides a good hook for those who are interested in delving deeper.

Fourth, he holds no truck with the anti-Stratfordians. While he is polite about it, he states clearly and concisely the central flaw with the anti-Stratfordian position. (For those unaware of it, this is the general term for those who believe that someone other than Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's works. A remarkably large number of people, some of whom are quite intelligent and educated have fallen prey to this pernicious philosophy.) Bryson's comment on pg. 182 is, "So it needs to be said that nearly all of the anti-Shakespeare sentiment - actually all of it, every bit - involves manipulative scholarship or sweeping misstatements of fact."

There are a lot of books on Shakespeare out there, and many focus on some detail, trying to explain some facet of Shakespeare's life or work. Some of those books are very good indeed, but the sheer number is overwhelming. For those who are not devoted Shakespearian scholars, something a little more general and little more accessible is the way to go. Bryson's book fills that niche admirably. Even for those who do have a deeper interest in Shakespeare, this book is a worthy addition to a bookshelf and good read, providing a one-stop shop for general data. My only quibble is that an index would be a welcome addition, especially for those in the latter category.

Overall Grade: B+