What do you think?
Rate this book
Anonymous: William Shakespeare Revealed
With 165 color images, this stunning visual companion to Anonymous captures the striking recreation of the Elizabethan period that imagines Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, as the true author of the plays credited to William Shakespeare. The brilliant work of the talented filmmakers is celebrated in this book that Here is a riveting portrayal of the complex world of Shakespeare’s times, when scandalous political intrigue, illicit romances in the royal court, and the schemes of greedy nobles hungry for the power of the throne were exposed in the most unlikely of the London stage.
168 pages, Paperback
First published September 13, 2011
1 person is currently reading
16 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 31, 2022
===I’m more interested in the film itself and while this is merely a “making of” book my review will concentrate on the flaws I perceive of the film which this book does follow===
Anonymous hosts some pretty visuals but it is poorly written and wastes the lengthy list of talented players in melodramatic dialogue. Overall, the film is deeply reactionary and disturbing in the philosophy that it presents.
The film owes its conception to John Orloff’s reading of the book The Mysterious William Shakespeare by Charleton Ogburn who expanded on J.T. Looney’s proposition that the plays ascribed to William Shakespeare were actually written by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.
J.T. Looney was himself, a fairly reactionary individual and his theory reflects his personal beliefs better than it reads into Shakespeare. The film amplifies that message.
In Anonymous the vast majority of mankind are dirty, uncultured, and easily manipulated peons. The highly educated, but common born are just tools- as inconsequential as a quill. Women are shallow vehicles for reproduction- ugly and sordid if poor (William Shakespeare fucks one at the edge of a pigsty), a shrew if rich as Oxford’s wife. Even Queen Bess isn’t above disparagement. As a youth she’s flirty, and shallow. In her later years she’s a ninny- a leather bookmark between kings.
Oxford navigates them all. During a performance of Henry V he riles up a crowd with a patriotic exhortation “Death to the French!” after the dumb yokels abase themselves before the actor portraying Hal.
Contrasted with Shakespeare’s rutting amongst the pigs is Oxford’s seduction of the young Elizabeth. Presumably, the act itself was just too pure for the audience’s plebeian sensibilities and like some Hipster sneering ‘You wouldn’t know it anyway…’ we’re never even given an image of the pregnant royal to sympathize with. Instead it would seem that fair Essex gestated and was delivered painlessly probably between the lines of iambic pentameter that so baffled the otherwise highly educated Jonson. Ben Jonson eventually learns to mind his place. “You have no voice!” a frustrated Oxford tells Jonson, and right he is. That then is the theme of the film.
The ancient male nobility is shown as being inherently industrious, inherently good, bred to rule, and rule well. They have a voice.
In a moment of unintended hilarity a young Oxford greets each of his tutors specific to their specialty. He apparently begins adolescence already fluent in Greek, Latin, and the law. His tutors do no have a voice. They’re kind of redundant it seems and they’re brought on only to show why they don’t need to be brought on.
A servant is summarily killed by Oxford for spying on him. He didn’t have a voice either. His job was to be killed (but wind up referenced in Hamlet, as if that’s consolation).
Tom Stoppard managed to turn that sort of conceit on its head in the delightful Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Minor characters of a tragedy without much dialogue to their credit become the main characters of a comedy. Hamlet may be the Prince of Denmark but “all the stage is a world” and the little guy has a life.
John Orloff seemingly disagrees.
The film presents a distaste for all things common despite the literary world always having been collaborative, and indeed, egalitarian.
Anonymous hosts some pretty visuals but it is poorly written and wastes the lengthy list of talented players in melodramatic dialogue. Overall, the film is deeply reactionary and disturbing in the philosophy that it presents.
The film owes its conception to John Orloff’s reading of the book The Mysterious William Shakespeare by Charleton Ogburn who expanded on J.T. Looney’s proposition that the plays ascribed to William Shakespeare were actually written by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.
J.T. Looney was himself, a fairly reactionary individual and his theory reflects his personal beliefs better than it reads into Shakespeare. The film amplifies that message.
In Anonymous the vast majority of mankind are dirty, uncultured, and easily manipulated peons. The highly educated, but common born are just tools- as inconsequential as a quill. Women are shallow vehicles for reproduction- ugly and sordid if poor (William Shakespeare fucks one at the edge of a pigsty), a shrew if rich as Oxford’s wife. Even Queen Bess isn’t above disparagement. As a youth she’s flirty, and shallow. In her later years she’s a ninny- a leather bookmark between kings.
Oxford navigates them all. During a performance of Henry V he riles up a crowd with a patriotic exhortation “Death to the French!” after the dumb yokels abase themselves before the actor portraying Hal.
Contrasted with Shakespeare’s rutting amongst the pigs is Oxford’s seduction of the young Elizabeth. Presumably, the act itself was just too pure for the audience’s plebeian sensibilities and like some Hipster sneering ‘You wouldn’t know it anyway…’ we’re never even given an image of the pregnant royal to sympathize with. Instead it would seem that fair Essex gestated and was delivered painlessly probably between the lines of iambic pentameter that so baffled the otherwise highly educated Jonson. Ben Jonson eventually learns to mind his place. “You have no voice!” a frustrated Oxford tells Jonson, and right he is. That then is the theme of the film.
The ancient male nobility is shown as being inherently industrious, inherently good, bred to rule, and rule well. They have a voice.
In a moment of unintended hilarity a young Oxford greets each of his tutors specific to their specialty. He apparently begins adolescence already fluent in Greek, Latin, and the law. His tutors do no have a voice. They’re kind of redundant it seems and they’re brought on only to show why they don’t need to be brought on.
A servant is summarily killed by Oxford for spying on him. He didn’t have a voice either. His job was to be killed (but wind up referenced in Hamlet, as if that’s consolation).
Tom Stoppard managed to turn that sort of conceit on its head in the delightful Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Minor characters of a tragedy without much dialogue to their credit become the main characters of a comedy. Hamlet may be the Prince of Denmark but “all the stage is a world” and the little guy has a life.
John Orloff seemingly disagrees.
The film presents a distaste for all things common despite the literary world always having been collaborative, and indeed, egalitarian.
November 19, 2012
Pure eye candy. Interesting essays, too, but I love the images. Of course, I loved the movie for its costumes, too. Edward de Vere as the author of the Shakespearean canon AND the queen's lost bastard son? Umm, I'm skeptical. But the movie looked so good...
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews