'Anonymous' Asks The Right Questions Of Shakespeare's Work, Says Director Roland Emmerich

Anonymous

First Posted: 26/10/11 15:11 Updated: 26/10/11 16:07

"I'm stunned at the rigidness, especially here in England, America is a little bit better, they're more open about the authorship question, but only a little bit. Here in England, there is only one professor really who cares about it."

Anonymous director Roland Emmerich has caused a storm with his big screen epic drama, exploring one of history's most enduring conundrums - the genuine authorship behind the works ascribed to one William Shakespeare.

Stratford purists may be up in arms that the genius of their most celebrated citizen is being questioned in the film but, for unflappable Emmerich, it's purely a case of "looking at the facts".

Emmerich, a name previously associated with less literary fare - Independence Day, Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow - has already written down his 10 strongest reasons for disbelieving the hype surrounding William Shakespeare. It seems that is only the tip of his iconoclastic iceberg.

"I have another 200 reasons, maybe 500," he explains in London, ahead of the film's release later this week.

"For example, you have to ask how and why he invented language. The real Shakespeare created 3000 words out of Latin and Greek and anglicised them - in the public theatre, nobody would have understood that, that's why I think all these plays were written first for the court.
And a commoner playwright couldn't have written for the court, because that wasn't where their work went."

In Anonymous, it's one of Queen Elizabeth's most senior courtiers, the Earl of Oxford, who gets the credit instead. Why, out of all the usual suspects, including Francis Bacon and Christopher Marlowe, has Emmerich settled on him?

"Oxford was not only the most famous, celebrated court playwright during the Elizabethan Age, but also someone who got dedications in books of learning," he explains. "He was known in his time to have two acting groups, including the Blackfriars Theatre. At one point when he had no money, he even bought a house called Fisher's Folly to put up writers.

"These are just striking facts, and the Stratfordians (those who support Will Shakespeare's claim to the works) always make you believe he could be the worst candidate because he was such a complicated and eccentric man. I'm asking, 'Haven't you read the plays?'"

So is Emmerich firmly in the Earl of Oxford's corner when it comes to identifying the genuine author of the plays?

"No, the Stratfordians do that, I'd never do that.

"It's very likely it's Oxford, but we cannot know for sure. The best thing is to say we don't know, but we should keep searching, because the search will lead us deeper into the meaning of the plays.

"You have to be careful of history books, because they are old scholars, basing their stuff on errors, and often writing within a totalitarian state. Everything left from a time like that has been censored, and censored again, so you have to read a lot of stuff, read between the lines and ask, 'If this happened today, who would that be?' And then you have astonishing ideas."

Emmerich remains equally unabashed at causing controversy with his depiction of the Virgin Queen Elizabeth as a woman who took full advantage of her God-given authority to enjoy many more earthly pleasures.

"The Virgin Queen?" he laughs. "Well, there were rumours then too, which she always furiously denied, sometimes so strongly that you thought, 'Oh my god.' She constantly had these favourites, and she took them into her bedchamber... what were they doing? She was the daughter of Henry VIII, who had eight wives and beheaded her mother. The other view could be that she was so traumatised by all this that she never wanted to be touched... it's another theory worth exploring, we'll probably never know."

Obviously it matters to those who've taken to the streets to defend the Bard, or to deface his posters around Stratford with the word "Fraud". But does it really matter who wrote these works that continue to inspire us 400 years later?

"Yes and no," reflects Emmerich. "When it comes to the place and the work, I don't think it matters. But when you look at the literary establishment, students and kids growing up, it matters - it's very dangerous not to give people the complete picture. What we're really trying to do is entice people to watch and read Shakespeare again.

"We're very proud of what we have done, because it glorifies theatre and Shakespeare. It's about a writer, and about words, and I tried to make the film as Shakespearean as I could.

And after such a journey of discovery, could Emmerich be persuaded to take on his own favourite Shakespeare role of Hamlet?

"I'm not an actor," he says firmly. "I'm terrified of even standing on the stage."

Anonymous is in UK cinemas from Friday 28 October. See the trailer below:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK ENTERTAINMENT

"I'm stunned at the rigidness, especially here in England, America is a little bit better, they're more open about the authorship question, but only a little bit. Here in England, there is only one pr...
"I'm stunned at the rigidness, especially here in England, America is a little bit better, they're more open about the authorship question, but only a little bit. Here in England, there is only one pr...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 6
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheWM
aka The Wrong Monkey
17:04 on 02/11/2011
"So is Emmerich firmly in the Earl of Oxford's corner when it comes to identifying the genuine author of the plays?

"'No, the Stratfordians do that, I'd never do that.

"'It's very likely it's Oxford, but we cannot know for sure'"

Ah yes: "We cannot know for sure." The last refuge of the pseudo-intellectual hack.

"'The best thing is to say we don't know, but we should keep searching'"

Indeed. Maybe if Emmerich keeps searching, eventually he'll stumble over the mountain of solid evidence that Shakespeare wrote the plays and the poems.

Sometimes we can know things for sure. In some cases we do.

There are at least a half-dozen pieces about Anonymous, posted in various departments of HP, almost all presenting a pronounced anti-Stratfordian point of view. There's a brief video of Robert Shapiro, too brief to include even a summary of the non-tinfoil-hat view of the question. I guess that academics, like athiests, just have it pretty rough on HP.

Except for theologians, of course, and professors from other disciplines who like to insist that religion and science can be "reconciled." They're academics. Sort of.
09:23 on 28/10/2011
8 wives? Says it all really.
02:15 on 28/10/2011
He could have twice as many reasons, it still doesn't make it a viable theory. Many well-versed and educated people have disproved this many times.
16:04 on 27/10/2011
Dear Mr. Emmerich: How many wives? I think Ms. Stewart's comment says it all. If the rest of your history is as faulty as your knowledge of the Tudor and Elizabethan periods is, I would say, "stick to fantasy; it's what you're good at."
14:06 on 27/10/2011
Henry VIII had how many wives, Mr Emmerich? Not only is his grasp of Tudor history utterly risible, but he really needs to re-read Shakespeare.
For instance, MacBeth is strewn with direct refernces to the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. However, Edward De Vere died in 1604. Then, there's the small matter of all those other plays that were written, and published, long after De Vere's death. A slight hole in his theory, there!
Who really wrote Shakespeare? Shakespeare did!
00:33 on 02/11/2011
Your statement is not supported by fact. Macbeth is not strewn with direct references to the 1605 Gunpowder Plot. The mention of equivocation, associated with that incident, goes back to 1589, a long time before 1605. No other plays were written after Oxford died in 1604. The characteristic inclusion of topical celestial events in Shakespeare plays stopped at that point, and yet after that year the celestial telescope, the moons of Venus and Jupiter, the retrograde Mars, and the sun-centered planetary system were revolutionary news in England. You may have to do some reading. Shakespeare was a pseudonym. Shakspere was a money-lender. Only a genius using Shakespeare as a moniker wrote Shakespeare. It was after both Shakspere and Oxford were dead that the First Folio made the identity switch, to the knavish person with a name close to the pseudonym. Before that Shakspere was a laughingstock to those who knew his opportunistic impersonations of "Shakespeare". For this he was recorded by the real author and by Ben Jonson, uniformly as a plagiarer and parvenu. Don't worship clay idols. They crumble.