Joely Richardson: 'Anonymous' Shakespeare Debate, Mum Vanessa Redgrave And Acting Through Grief

Joely Richardson

First Posted: 28/10/11 14:31 Updated: 29/10/11 00:16

"Whoever wrote the plays is saying we're all equal, we're all foolish and at moments we're all fabulous."

Now Anonymous star Joely Richardson is weighing into the authorship debate surrounding Shakespeare's professed works, with reasons of her own why it might not be Stratford's celebrated son who picked up his quill.

"Shakespeare's daughters were illiterate, and I just can't believe that a literary genius would not impart some of that to his offspring," she explains.

"“That's the one that sticks with me the most. The argument I don't like is the class argument, where people are saying that only a toff could write the plays as opposed to a commoner."

Richardson, impossibly Amazonian and bright-eyed on this bleak Tuesday afternoon in London, believes there is much to enjoy in the film, whatever the authenticity of the works which inspired it:

"I think ultimately it doesn't matter. It's not a documentary. It is, bizarrely, like one of Shakespeare's plays where everything is turned on its head, the heroes, the villains, vice versa. Elizabeth has gone from the extreme of being Virgin Queen to quite the opposite. It's a real tale with many strains - a love story, the historical background of the Elizabethan court, politics and theatre."

The film also provided Richardson with another chance to act with her mother, Vanessa Redgrave, who plays the Queen as an older woman. Redgrave also played Richardson's mother in a recent series of US TV drama Nip/Tuck, and collaboration between the pair is obviously something that comes naturally:

"I hope it doesn't sound pretentious to say we have a little bit of a head start," reflects Richardson. "With two people who have such a common history, background, familiarity with each other, I do think it's a given.

"I find Mum's performance as the older Elizabeth compelling but heartbreaking. I see her as this disillusioned, frail, isolated woman. But there's a moment in the film by a window when it's actually the strong Vanessa (Redgrave) coming through - she always has many different layers."

For Richardson, such appreciation of the others in one of England's great stage and screen dynasties is not something she's always enjoyed:

"My attitude to the family has changed. When I very first started out, I had that arrogance of youth," Richardson remembers now. "And it really is a myth that having a well-known name helps you get jobs. The early part of my career I really struggled, getting turned down again and again. I was in debt, and it was horrible. And then my family hit such highs in their careers, I asked myself what I was thinking going into the same profession.

"Then, in my late thirties, I found my own groove - I’m a ridiculously late bloomer. So finally, I can feel a sort of pride in all my family - Mum, Lynn, Corin, Tasha, my cousin Gemma - because, I think how wonderful that this troop of gypsies can carry on telling stories. So now I've come to love it."

Inevitably, the recognition that comes with success means having to weather personal loss in front of an attentive public, something Richardson has experienced at first hand during the past two years, with the loss of her aunt Lynn Redgrave, uncle Corin, and the sudden death of her sister Natasha in a skiing accident in America. Can acting be a solace in the face of such grief, or impossible because of its poignant association for Richardson?

"People are very divided when they're going through a tough time as to whether work can help," muses Richardson. "I think work really is a life saver, because it carries you forward, which is good.

"And it's more special to me now because of all the people who came before, it's very tribal, and I want to carry on for their sakes."

Anonymous is in UK cinemas from today. Watch the trailer below:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK ENTERTAINMENT

"Whoever wrote the plays is saying we're all equal, we're all foolish and at moments we're all fabulous." Now Anonymous star Joely Richardson is weighing into the authorship debate surrounding Shak...
"Whoever wrote the plays is saying we're all equal, we're all foolish and at moments we're all fabulous." Now Anonymous star Joely Richardson is weighing into the authorship debate surrounding Shak...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 11
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chrystal Ji Davey
Chem. Dance. Theatre.
13:41 on 29/10/2011
VanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgraveVanessaRedgrave
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Speight
11:19 on 29/10/2011
Like classical music, Shakespeare is only really enjoyed by the upper classes. I like both too, but I am in the minority. He's more a requirement of being upper-class and educated than anything else.

I'm not surprised they want to fight any challenge to his "special-ness".
Justice Goodyear
Equal disdain for both political parties
16:39 on 29/10/2011
And a good bottle of wine? What a ridiculous statement. Shakespeare was written in the verse of royalty for the common man.
14:56 on 30/10/2011
Completely idiotic!

Shakespeare's main audience, those on the floor of the house, were traders and lower - certainly not the upperclass. They had their theatre privately, not with the rest.

If you ever see a group of school kids at a good production one of the great plays, you would realise how ill-informed you are. They are dragged in by the teacher as if it will be some form of torture, and leave so hyper and amazed by the play. I remember that at the bog-standard London Comprehensive I went to. Some of us were middle class, most were not - we all LOVED it!

Shakespeare is not and has never been for the upper classes. But he is for the literate. That does not take class but good teaching.

Oh, and you are wrong about classical music too. You will find very few of the upper class in the world class orchestras. But you will find highly talented people from all backgrounds.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Speight
15:40 on 14/11/2011
Shakespeare's audience was traders and lower classes. Not anymore.
Children go to see Shakespeare become it is chosen for the curriculum.

And pray tell and give some evidence of how they "leave so hyper and amazed by the play"! I have never, ever, never seen this, anywhere. Show me!

"Shakespear­e is not and has never been for the upper classes." what?!

"
Oh, and you are wrong about classical music too. You will find very few of the upper class in the world class orchestras­." Dude I play piano, and in my university town's "Music Fest" for classical music was over 80% people from rich families. I love Bach and Beethoven, but I am in the minority. Also, I have no money. If you loved Shakespeare - great! But you are a minority.
22:53 on 28/10/2011
The "controver­sy" about the authorship of Shakespear­e's plays is nonsense. The idea that the real author had to hide his (or her) identity and attribute work to a theatre owner from Stratford is founded on nothing but supposition and invented coincidences.

There is no logic or justificat­ion to the story that an aristocrat­ic writer would have had to write in secret in the Elizabetha­n age. The writing of poetry and plays was an esteemed vocation, not a shameful one. Shakespear­e's plays and poems were popular, not controversial. The great writers of the age, Shakespeare's friends, colleagues and collaborators, Ben Jonson among them, gave him the highest praise.

The argument that Shakespeare didn't have the breeding or the education to write his works is ridiculous. He read and translated Greek and Latin classic plays, poems and histories as a grammar school student.

That Shakespeare was not nobly born has nothing to do with his talent. In our own age, four working-class boys from Liverpool without the ability to read or write music created dozens of the most sophistica­ted, melodic, beautiful and complex songs in history. Genius is a mystery. Ever thus.

There was no doubt at all about Shakespear­e as a writer for more than 200 years after his death. The pedants, careerists and confabulat­ors who waste their time inventing alternativ­e authors of Shakespear­e's works would be a lot better off simply reading the plays and revelling in their brilliance­.
Justice Goodyear
Equal disdain for both political parties
16:43 on 29/10/2011
As an English major at university I studied Shakespeare intensely. This was 35 years ago. It was clear then, as now, that this actor and manager could not have written with the complexity required - the plot within the plot within the plot was never done before this time and hasn't been done as well since. Shakespeare did not write these plays or poems. I saw the movie last night and it is excellent although there is a lot of, actually a great deal of literary and historical license. It is a great movie but really doesn't shed any new light on the controversy surrounding Shakespeare.
15:05 on 30/10/2011
Well, I would strongly advise that you revisit your education.

The whole idea that "Shakespeare didn't do it" is something much more modern and stupid, conceived by fools who would rather cause a storm than accept reality. You see it now with countless conspiracy theories about everything else and it holds as little water.

The people of the time, those who actually KNEW Shakespeare, his contemporaries, his friends, the actors and the audiences, and even his enemies, knew and acknowledged his genius.

He was one of the two leading impresarios of his time - the equivalent of Cameron Mackintosh, if you like, though Shakespeare authored as well. I have worked with Mackintosh - he is HIGHLY intelligent as someone is his position has to be. Just as Shakespeare would have had to have been.

The only controversy lives in the minds of those who hate to believe in something that is good - there is no controversy outside that world.
17:25 on 28/10/2011
I am not sure if I will go to see the film . . but I think Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare . . there is a lot of evidence to support it.

As for his daughters being illiterate well . . . maybe he was didn't think it was important for them to be literature or if he was in London a lot of the time and their mother was responsible for their education maybe she didn't think it was necessary . . .at this distance with so little information it is impossible to answer that issue.
Justice Goodyear
Equal disdain for both political parties
16:45 on 29/10/2011
There is? There is no manuscript. There is nothing but his legend that says Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Long before this film educated people know the probability that Shakespeare didn't writ the plays or poems attributed to him. The movie is great but really has nothing to do with this. It is just a good movie.
15:20 on 30/10/2011
Er, no.

Shakespeare is not Robin Hood. There is HUGE amount of contemporary records about the theatre of Shakespeare's time and his very influential place within it. He was not some bloke off-stage, as it were, who suddenly did something magical. He was very established, very renowned and very respected (and insulted) by his contemporaries.

He is not someone that only became famous now, somehow previously unrecognised. He was incredibly famous then too, though his plays often had rather mixed reviews!

The main issue seems to have come up some 150 years later because a pile of Oxford Academics felt that unless you were one of them you would be unable to write so well. They probably created the controversy out of pure malice.

Most conspiracies start because someone cant accept that someone else is better than them or clever or has achieved more. What sad, miserable people there are.