Anonymous

Director: Roland Emmerich
Cast: Rhys Ifans, David Thewlis, Edward Hogg, Sebastian Armesto, Rafe Spall, Joely Richardson and Vanessa Redgrave
Releasing in cinemas: 3 November 2011
Rated: M

Just about every aspect of Anonymous plays against standard cinematic norms. From the opening shot which features the streets of a modern city (New York) to the delicacy of directorial touch from the normally bombastic Roland Emmerich, this tale of artistic and political intrigue in Elizabethan England certainly subverts expectations.

Emmerich, you may recall, is the director behind such overstuffed delights as Independence Day, Godzilla and 2012. You could have knocked me over with a feather when his name  appeared on the credits for this film, because here he displays a filmmaking dexterity that belies his CV.

The opening prologue, for example, features one of the more spectacular segues between scenes you're likely to see. He produces a masterstroke of casting by having Vanessa Redgrave play the aging Elizabeth I; and her daughter, Joely Richardson, as the same character many years earlier. His handling of a crucial dance sequence (which seems to have become mandatory in period films) is frankly quite brilliant; and his eye for small but important details is spot on.

Of course, it may have helped that Emmerich had the advantage of a coherent and engaging script by John Orloff, who wrote the screenplay for A Mighty Heart.  The script works both as a political thriller and literary drama. It proceeds from the premise that the plays of William Shakespeare were not written by the Bard himself, but by the reclusive Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans). This is, of course, nothing new. Apparently there are something like 96 individual "suspects" to have been the real author of the works. Four of those - De Vere, Ben Johnson, Christopher Marlowe and Edmund Spenser - appear in the film (although perhaps oddly, arguably the chief "suspect", Francis Bacon, does not).

Is it historically accurate then? The short answer is no. Indeed, those with even a rudimentary knowledge of the period will notice some immediate problems. Emmerich and Orloff have acknowledged these in interviews, contending they are not "errors" but rather an homage of sorts to the way Shakespeare himself took liberties in his writing.

Orloff's great achievement with this screenplay however is not in ventilating a rather arcane theory about the authorship of Shakespeare's works; but rather in weaving a mesmerising tale of intrigue and duplicity, skilfully melding historical events into the fictional aspects of the story to create a compelling narrative. He also creates some wonderful characters, notably the unctuous Robert Cecil (Edward Hogg), whom the film suggests was the inspiration for Richard III.

The recreation of the period is impressive, with the costuming being particularly striking. For the technically-minded, this was the first film to be shot using the Arri ALEXA hi-def digital camera, and the resulting cinematography by Anna Foerster is as sharp and detailed as you'd expect in conventional film - no shaky hand-held stuff here.

The largely unfamiliar cast is led by Rhys Ifans as the dapper Oxford. He puts in a fine shift as the nobleman/author who manages to inveigle himself into the affections of the Queen; only to lose it all. David Thewlis brings a real gravitas to Elizabeth's key adviser, William Cecil; while Edward Hogg is excellent as his scheming son. Sebastian Armesto makes Jonson a rather dashing figure, in contrast to Rafe Spall's oafish Shakespeare. Vanessa Redgrave is convincing as Elizabeth in her dotage, while Joely Richardson is marvellous as her younger self.

So, does it really matter who authored Shakespeare's works? In short, no. As the Bard himself wrote, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". That fact however should not detract from the many pleasures in Anonymous. This is high-calibre filmmaking; a movie for lovers of costume drama to devour. Indeed, it's so good, one wag of a critic suggested that Emmerich could not have had anything to do with it, and that some unnamed filmmaker (whose identity will be debated for years to come) must have been involved. Touché.

David Edwards