Synonmous

Giving up the Ghost

The Faux Pas—step not beyond

Start with Shapiro and Brean on detective fiction and authorship. Code used by Owen to find a new play by Bacon about Elizabeth. Forgery of a play dictated by Shakespeare’s ghost. Pseudonymous. To the Reader signed “The Author.”Generative model—Will in the World as a novel and the novels Greenblatt cites just like other novelizations of Elizabeth and Shakespeare, Elizabeth and Bacon, Elizabeth and Oxford presented as historical fact.

Aldémah [pseudonym], The Queens: Being Passages From the Lives of Elizabeth, , Queen of England, and Mary, Queen of Scotland. Chic, F. J. Schulte & Co., 1892. (1892). Shakespeare is an intimate chronicler of Elizabeth’s secret life in another sense in The Queens by “Aldemah” ( 1892), a long blank verse tragedy, supposedly dictated by Shakespeare’s ghost, all about Elizabeth’s remorse over the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots. Orville Ward Owen followed it with The Historical Tragedy of Mary Queen of Scots. By the author of Hamlet, Richard II, Othello, As You Like it. Etc. Deciphered from the works of Sir Francis Bacon by Orville W. Owen, M.D. (Detroit, 1894).

Michael Dobson and Nicola J. Watson, England’s Elizabeth: An Afterlife in Fame and Fantasy (Oxford UP, 2002), 310. Start with epitext stuff—on writing, then go to diegesis and correspondence theory of truth that is also a kind of de-subjectivation of narrative, or non-characterlogical criticism, biographical reading of the plays, then to writing. Lack of motivation for plot developments. Narrative integration and at odds with codes of cinematic continuity and formal parallelisms: cross-cutting; montage. Cross two plots at the time, alternating, or one slightly behind the other or slightly ahead; montage is about the passing of time, ellipsis. Hamlet sequence uses both.

The flashbacks do not return to the present, to the person who had the flashback, as The Return of Martin Guerre does or Toutes les matins du monde, in a slight variation, Sunset Boulevard or numerous other films; instead, we move to another plot development that is apparently in the same present as was the flashback. Flashbacks tended to be rooted in a signal character, who sometimes is also a voice-over narrator.Anonymous is and is not a proper name; it is the name as title. But not Earl of Oxford’s Shakespeare, or Earl of Oxford, Pseudonym.

Worth attending to the way Anonymous is the title, means that we have to get at patterns of textual delivery, cinematic codes of withholding and revealing, and because they are available only to close reading, we need first to get at ways in which the film’s incoherence—lack of correspondence, truth, decoding, is really visible only through a close reading.

There is no equivalent of the sequence in the Da Vinci Code when Ian McKellen shows, via a computer imaging, that the apostle John is really Mary Magdalene. McKellen provides the voice-over commentary. Hanks comments are not contradictions but additions. Cross cuts briefly (one shot; then another of Paul McGann on the roof, about to break-in; preceded and followed by faded out footage of the historical past about which McKellen is speaking (kind of like History Channel shows); flash forward shots (two ) of what we later learn are priory members wearing silver masks. Synchronization of image and voice-over; image matches the words, the image illustrates.

1

Polonius, performing first in globe then at court. Elizabeth nods. Cross cutting

between the two performances. Closet scene and Polonius, who looks like older

Cecil, is slain. Audience member IDs Cecil with Polonius.

Robert looks out the window and has a flashback to his youth—Robert! Robert come here with some strange echoing as after some back and for the brief shots, we are in the past (who knows how many years earlier).(nothing hidden as far as authorship; it’s a given. Globe burns down—does that mean it’s 1613—but it’s right after Oxford dies (near the end of the film)—or what s the relation in time? Not the way the Globe burned down. So when are we? In Shakespeare in Love, the first title is 158.

Yet the blu-ray icons that shows the disc loading before defaulting to the corporate logo produces a kind of vanishing Shakespeare signature effect: as it “unwriting” itself, the words “William Shakespeare disappear letter by letter from right to left, leaving only a blank. The movie is a collage of images which don’t quite become a conspiracy—there’s no

obvious conspiracy—why does Elizabeth refuse to allow

If there was a real conspiracy film the title wouldn’t be anonymous. Anon disavows

an identification of anyone as the author. The title correctly describes with the film

presents but it doesn’t allow us to translate the bits into stable bibliographical

codes.

There’s a visible link between ink and blood stains when the young de Vere kills the

thief who stole his papers. The film has no interest in attaching text to author. It

shows papers and authors in proximity, but we never even get the title of a play, not

the way that is shut, not A Midsummer Night’s Dream, not even the sonnets.

Shakespeare’s name and his works are connected by Jacobi is his opening

monologue, but not one title is mentioned. Nothing in the film about published

plays, just about manuscripts in “his own handwriting.” The film implies that the

manuscripts by Oxford still exist.

2

Polonius parallel—cited by Jonson first in conjunction with torture to locate plays of

de Vere; then closet scene re-enacted by de Vere when a thief in the house steals

only some of his papers—it’s not clear whey he has taken a few papers and not all of

them.

Southampton presents her with a theater –dwarf announces his gift is a play. Cecil

is

Comedy by whom?

By anonymous your majesty

Anonymous. I so admire his verse.

AMND is played outside—scene with Bottom singing as ass. Titania wakes—what

angel wakes me . .? If we

Forty years earlier as we go to puck and young Elizabeth. Puck is a child—all of the

actors are children; performance is inside. Cecil’s house. De Vere is Puck and also

the author. Elizabeth asks him to compose something on on truth.

He is not only a poet but wants to serve—We may have found your replacement,

Lord Cecil.

Then back to the present with “Benjamin Jonson” being called by a guard while

Jonson is in a prison cell. You’ve been released. You’ve got powerful friends now

don’t you.” He is puzzled. R On a boating rowing to De Vere’s house—looks like A

Man for All Seasons.

Genre—biopic, thriller, male drama. But not a “who wrote it?” not exactly the same thing as a detective story. It is not a thriller. Not like the Da Vinci Code.

3

It may not seem worth going into such detail given that the film is not particularly good, or no better than Shakespeare in Love as far as composition goes. But not just the non-linear narrative. It’s about the coherence of reference in the diegesis that makes the presentation of title and name, manuscript and performance. No prompt book between manuscript (foul papers) and performance. No publication either.

The film is a series of trailers for films that didn’t made—loss of reference in the film itself. Complete with fauxsimiles as props.

Link between correspondence theory of truth, cinematic codes of reference, and biobliographical codes of authorship.

What does Anonymous have to do with the Arden Double Falsehood?

Don’t Cry Over Spilled InkSigning offPointing the FingerSemiotic overplus

Keeping Shakespeare Off the Shelf

Index—Dekker points to “non sans droict”—something I can’t make out hereNo differentiation between secretary hand and Italian handwriting.Anonymous botches revelation moments. Writing moments are about the

withholding of revelation. The film you didn’t see because it’s not there. A bunch of

teasers (the writing scenes) that the film that never got made. Two theater montage

scenes.

There’s no subjective center, like Shakespeare in Shakespeare in Love. Third person omniscient. Oxford and Cecil have identical shots for flashbacks; Oxford has two different flashbacks; Elizabeth has one flashbackAdditional frame to James-from HV to James watching it at court. Shakespeare is there, even though Jacobi says he was off in Stratford.

In one way it is due to incompetence and in another by design. Whenever they need to make something obvious by synonym, then do.

Whenever they move back in time, a flashback will do. So the titles don’t reinforce each other.

Hands Off Shakespeare

4

Anonymous the incoherence of the film’s diegesis, the way its nonsensical ways in which it moves back in time and place; its doublings and shot repetitions; scenesinvolving the erasure of Shakespeare's name on the blu-ray; the ink splashing on the poster, the trailer, and the DVD menu; texts without authors, Oxford signing Shakespeare's name in different ways but never his own; and the multiple narrative frames and flashbacks frames; montages that confuse time and space; and Jonson finding the singed mss that then weirdly disappears, the finding of the singed copy of HV and the cut to the prologue to HV, then the cut to Jacobi (who is preceded by the ghost of his prologue in Branagh's film.  It's all really bizarre.  I also noticed almost exactly parallel shots of Oxford looking at the audience from behind a curtain and Shakespeare looking at James I from behind a curtain.

Mashup of different cinematic codes to establish diegesis, coherence of space and time, on the one hand. And separation of text from print and performance, plays from publication, on the other. And yet separation of text from signature, or final draft of title page.

Cinematic codes to establish the film’s genre—thriller biopic--mark continuity in time and space get in the way of biobibliogrpahical codes.

The cloth covering that turn out to be Oxford’s manuscripts matches the shroud over Oxford’s face after he dies. But the shroud disappears when Jonson finds the manuscripts singed but unburned because Jonson has discarded it by then.

Meaningless pointing, enigmatic parallels.

5

Ceil tells her “I have brought you something to sign, your majesty. It’s the Act of Succession.Elizabeth points to James name in the Act of Succession, ID by Cecil when we see a parallel close-up with her name in the same position and same size.

Correspondence Politics: Topical Satire and Formal Parallels

Correspondence theory of truth—topical satire established early in the film in Every Man Out of His Humour. Theater closed and Jonson arrested (as in Shakespeare in Love, but this time shut down works. Lord Chamberlain pointed to in Hamlet poster followed by shot of Polonius as Cecil; audience says “It’s Cecil” in performance of Richard III. Nothing is hidden, everything is transparent.

Cause of Globe fire is not Henry VIII; it’s the hunt for Jonson, smoking him out.

6

Shakespeare shot echoes shot of Oxford watching Elizabeth watch A Midsummer Night’s Dream at court; then she has her flashback. So shots echo each other in ways that create synonyms or equivalences that create multiple doubles or mirrors. Richard Burbage when Richard II gets out of control.

Young Oxford killing spy behind the tapestry—but Polonius parallel not spelled out. Polonius’s murder is not included in the Hamlet montage.

Cross-cutting Sequences

the spilt audience watching, seemingly, the same performance in different locations; Elizabeth is watching it on television.

The RIII scene is another intercut sequence in which continuity does not word—during the time of the speech, Oxford travels to the play by barge on the Thames—for some reason he is late and never arrives since RIII only makes it through his opening soliloquy. Which also begins in medias res, not with Now is the winter of our discontent. During this time Cecil is armed, looks in a mirror, racking focus to his mirror image, cutting back to Condell as RIII. Again a double mirroring.Audience response is totally different. Earlier laughter at Every Man Out and now rage at the player. Oxford is not there, but his servant is, leading the mob. Jonson tries to stop him but servant can’t hear him and ends up dead, shot by soldiers firing on the mob.

7

The shots are very far apart.  I don't think one issupposed to notice the parallel.  In once, it’s a repeated flashback; in ther, it is meaningless

Flashbacks and Datelessness:

Jonson tortured at the best of Robert Cecil, alludes to Polonius, has flashbacks as he sis slapped by the torturer.

8

Flashing Flashback shots of Jonson also flashforward: they are repeated later in the play when Shakespeare comes on stage claiming authorship of Henry V; Shakespeare is withheld, as in classic Hollywood style, but for the protagonist. Should be Oxford who is withheld.

This torture frame is completed later in the film when Oxford springs Jonson. The frame is integrated into the narrative. Yet it returns to the frame at the beginning as Jonson is still being tortured. This time is released because he knows nothing.Jonson as here quick flashbacks that show the audience at the globe and Shakespeare from behind as Jonson is slapped during the torture.

4 Years earlier follows last flash back shot of Shakespeare. That is presumably what Jonson is remembering. Four years earlier. But the shot follows the flashback. Three extended shots of Shakespeare taking a bow by himself, whereas previous four flashbacks had been single shots.But when Jonson is about to be tortured, he actually quotes a line by Polonius about

historical pastoral, pastoral tragical, and so on, as if Robert Cecil were Polonius. But

we can’t know that. There's a logic in which revelation operates through another

secret--in this case that Jonson edited the plays. Similarly, Oxford learns that he is

Elizabeth's son (as is Essex), but he tells he that Southampton will never learn from

him (Oxford) that Southampton is his brother/son. (I was thinking of Chinatown--

my brother, my son, my brother my son). Shakespeare kills Marlowe to keep his

secret safe. Jonson is the only one who knows that. Then cut back to second

narrative frame of the film, Jonson being tortured. Now we understand –sort of—

why Cecil wants the manuscripts.

But earlier, when we saw Jonson released by de Vere, it seemed like he was released

from the very scene of torture that we now return to. How he got into jail to be

released is not otherwise explained. So the opening and closing frame does double

time.

9

Flashback of Oxford from Capulet ball to Elizabeth, who speaks of him resembling HV. discontinuity in the AMND scene--from Bottom and Titania to Puck's epilogue.

discontinuity from R and J to the ball--in each case, the line soundsthe same, even first name Robert. So the device works independently ofany particular scene.  It's like a computer software patch.  Run the editthrough the same program.There's an editing pattern, but each time, the pattern doesn't work very well.

Oxford has a flashback; 108:06 from Shakespeare being paid off to Oxford having sex with a lady-in-waiting and then writing, two shots, one overhead, one from behind, goes into cross-cutting of lady and Oxford writing at his desk. The lady says QEI will be furious about this, but pregnancy is not mentioned, only implied, and the immediate referent is his writing. “You’re writing again” row with his wife came earlier. Again, we don’t see what he is writing.Amen comes at the end of Richard III. Not “finis.”

In both cases, flashback precedes text determining the time. We never get 1613 or any specific date at the beginning from which we can subtract time. Cecil has a flashback to his youth but is really Oxford’s story;

Paratexts and Multiple Narrative frames: Opening and Ending

10

The Ends: Jonson finds the manuscripts singed but intact after the Globe has been burned down, with the help of his careless placement of fireworks he took out of the book in which he stored the mss. Apparently, the box is fireproof (to keep the fireworks from going off). Cut from the mistitled Henry V title page to “O for a Muse of Fire” back to Jacobi addressing the theater audience in the film.

We had seen” odd tense since it specifies a particular memory of James, not a general statement—seen them some lace and some time. Not just “We have seen some” does James mean seen touring productions? “this “Shakespeare” parallels Nashe “this Anonymous fellow.” Elizabeth refers to Anonymous as if it were a proper name before watching AMND at court.

Derek Jacobi as the chorus to Henry V in Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V

Jacobi as ghost of the Chorus to Henry V in Anonymous, as if reprising his role in Branagh’s Henry V.

11

Jacobi arrives late, just in time as the curtain rises; Oxford is late to Richard III.Jonson finds HV covered, begins to open, cut before we can see the text, cut back to text and COnfdell doing he chorus except that is not on the title page. Jonson also pulls off a burnt paper slip with HV on it, like King Lear. Both a withholding but a semiotic multiplication through voice-over and text.

From Anonymous book:

Ext. The Rose Theatre Dawn—Dawn

Jonson’s eyes search the ground. And, eventually, he finds it—The metal box that seems

to somehow have survived the conflagration. Jonson opens the box. Inside the box are

12

the manuscripts Oxford gave him. Jonson smiles relieved. They are singed at the edges,

but they are there. We hear—

Prologue (O.S.)

O—for a muse of fire . . the sweeling scene!

INT. Broadway Theattre—Stage—Dusk

“Prologue” turns and addresses hi audience (and us) in the modern theatre.

Prologue

Robert Cecil remained the most powerful man in the Court of King James, And in 1623

[Jonson] wrote the dedication to the collected works of the man we call William

Shakespeare. And so . . . though our story is finished, our oet’s is not. For his monument

is ever-living, made not of stone, but of verse, and it shall be remembered . . as long as

words are made of breath and breath of life.

The curtains close.

FADE OUT. Pp. 169-170

They were destroyed burned. Every word went up in flames when you torched the

theater.

To him I was nothing, a messenger.

He tells the truth. What is the referent of the truth?

That the mss were destroyed? That Oxford was undeniable perfection.

Another montage with singing—as James arrives at court to a masque and Jonson

returns to the burnt out theater (Catholic lyrics? They’re in Latin). The box reflects

light on Jonson, like a computer screen.

We see Henry V and again the chorus reciting the prologue. James says he loves

13

theater .

Jacobi wanders into this scene that cuts to him waking back before the audience.

And so though our story’s finished, our poets not. For his monument is ever living,

not of stone but of verse. Words are made of breath and breath of life.

No reference to the publication of the plays. End credits roll over people leaving the

theater. Ben Jon is elevated as eulogist of Oxford, task taken over by Jacobi, who

mentions Ben Jonson, His story s as important as Oxford’s. Shakespeare’s

retirement story told as well.

Even the end title sequence is a mess, partly because of the cut from “O for a muse of fire” matched to the title page, to conversation between James and Cecil, while Shakespeare is there watching HV as Oxford had watched Elizabeth earlier at court watch AMND. But Jacobi, who recalls the Branagh Henry V Chorus, says that Shakespeare retired, and the continuation of the plays implies that Shakespeare has control, if not possession, of the manuscripts, not Jonson. And James does mention Shakespeare by name. If so name and image correspond, while Jacobi’s narrative does not. Then the cut form behind the curtains to front of the curtains with the candles still visible as the cut dissolves in an extended, making it seem as f the candles are in front of the curtains.

Posting the Plays: Epitextual authorship in film and trailer

14

Trailer attributes Macbeth to Anonymous

Finger points to Lord Chamberlain, close up of Polonius looking like Cecil follows speaking to Ophelia and Laertes “Neither a borrower nor a lender be.”A criss-cross or double cross when it comes to the reveal? “The real Shakespeare” doesn’t mean that Shakespeare wasn’t Shakespeare. His name is not even in quotation marks.

Unsigning Shakespeare

15

Unsigning Shakespeare; blanking out Oxford in the trailer and, blu-ray loading icon, and extra “Who was the real William Shakespeare?Paratext –epitextual publicity and peritext—end titles—show that Vanessa and Joley Richardson have the same last name, and, yes, they are mother and daughter. We don’t see Oxford finish the second signature of William Shake Speare.

Uncertain referent of the title Anonymous: A Play? Or a film? Opening title sequence doubles the referent by dissolving into back except for the same lettering.

Blu-ray loads Shakespeare’s signature and then erases from right to left.

Shakespeare signing his name in Shakespeare in Love and Oxford re-signing William Shakespeare—first name a diminutive, second time spelled out as “William” but the last name in now broken in two, a space between “Shake” and “Speare,” and the ‘S’ in “Speare” capitalized. Two shots before he finishes spelling the name and putting the

16

hyphen in : at final “e” cut to wife entering and Oxford raising his hand to ask her to wait as he finishes, then cut back to the final hyphen and hands off.

Shakespeare signing his name in Shakespeare in Love and Oxford re-signing William Shakespeare—first name a diminutive, second time spelled out as “William” but the last name in now broken in two, a space between “Shake” and “Speare,” and the ‘S’ in “Speare” capitalized.

Unsigning Shakespeare in reverse, in the trailer and extra, “Who was the Real Shakespeare?” The paper is left blank. Footage rolling in reverse. The destruction of the manuscript, of the Globe, the death of Oxford, posthumous publication (as if none of the plays had been published during his lifetime and none anonymously—see Stallybrass on Name of the author, Shakespeare’s name), none really matters because the point is to keep the texts boxed up, off the shelf, separated from performance.

Shakespeare mispronounces “non sans droict” and thus appears to be able to read; immediately following Jonson exposes him as being unable to write even a single letter. (Jonson says “E” then “I”, then “a straight line”).

Publication, Signatures, and handwritten manuscripts

17

Publication of Venus and Adonis attributed by Oxford to Shakespeare, yet Shakespeare’s name does not appear anywhere in the book. Referent of “this”: pregnancy or manuscript? Venus and Adonis—the printing of the title does not bear Shakespeare’s name even though Oxford has just told him in the previous scene that he has had a poem published today. The tense is slightly off as we cut to the actual printing of the book. But the title page has no name. And the bound cover also cannot be seen until the scene ends with one of two ladies in waiting reading it handing it over to Elizabeth. When the older Eliz talks to the younger Cecil, the title is seen in mid distance at first, then gradually falls out of the picture as the shots of Eliz holding it, so that only the tile shows, become tighter and tighter close-ups. You had a poem published today. What you mean like a book?

Then cut to printing of Venus and Adonis. Then Shakespeare holding a copy and

reading it.

Ladies give a copy to Elizabeth. Has title but not author in the over,

Have you read the book? He writes about me, how I took, how I adored him?

18

Unsigned title pages, draft of Twelfth Night title page, spied by Jonson on Oxford’s desk as Oxford takes down plays form his shelf, has TN crossed out, followed by What You Will in smaller size, then Twelfth Night again written exactly as it is crossed out.

19

Published and unpublished manuscripts with title but no name; momentarily visible title page of King Lear with an unintelligible word crossed out and replaced by “Tragedie” above it and slip with King Lear written on it sticking out; Supplemental slip listing the title stuck in the cover by Oxford; none of the other manuscripts have such notes.. Is Jonson really holding the manuscripts of thirty-seven plays? Is The Tempest among them? Only a poem is published, never a play. OxfordAll my writings. The plays, the sonnets . . . Keep them safe. Keep them from my family. From the Cecils. Wait a few years, and then, publish them. Anonymous: William Shakespeare Revealed, p. 102

EPitextual Spilled Ink and Agency: Splash effects in the DVD and blu-ray menu

Poster for Anon and DVD and blu-ray cover—figure’s back turned to us—we can ID

him. And he is painted on with white and the white wall in front of him is splattered with

black ink. So mirroring, of painter painted while painting, --deep background.

20

The trailer uses similar effects. Shots of text inserted in the trailer show ink spilling in

slice motion of black on white background as a loud percussive “swish” sound imitating

splashed ink (paint, blood?) initiates each shot:

The first shots showing writing are close ups, so we don’t see who is writing. The shots

of Oxford do not show him writing.

The extra “Who is the Real William Shakespeare?” extra on Anon DVD recuts the trailer

and shows Hamlet by Shakespeare. Also has a shot of Ifans posing for the poster, turning

his head to the right. White screen in front of him. The splashes of ink come with

whooshes and then go into slow motion. The shot after Essex is beheaded suggests that

what looked like ink is now spurting blood.

See also DVD and blu-ray menu.

Ink spilled on Oxford’s papers by a spy working for Sir William Cecil. The text is shot upside down.

21

Trailer

Splashed ink on the poster and trailer carried over into the graphic design of the DVD and blu-ray menu and extras.

From “Who is the Real William Shakespeare?” Extra? (Notice the way the proper name

becomes a title.)

One of the most curious things about Anonymous is that it does not advance the Oxfordian cause. Not only the double frame that doesn't make any claim, esp the ending, or the incoherent datings, or the preposterous idea that Oxford is Eliz's daughter, but that there is no name attached, no signature ((Shakespeare’s name is

22

erased in blu-ray loading).The texts area always already retrieved from the library self--alreadywritten when Oxford presses them.  No manuscript exists, but Jonsonretrieves the manuscripts at the end.  Where'd they go? Jacobi’s initial points is that we have nothing n Shakespeare’s hand. But then that is also true of Oxford. We have none of the mss that Jonson finds and then presumably edits for the First Folio. We cut back to Jacobi.

Unlike Shakespeare in Love, no scenes of Oxford writing the play, or anyplay; instead montages, of plays in random order.Yet the blu-ray icons that shows the disc loading before defaulting to the corporate logo produces a kind of vanishing Shakespeare signature effect: as it unwriting itself, the words “William Shakespeare disappear letter by letter from right to left, leaving only a blank.

The movie is a collage of images which don’t quite become a conspiracy—there’s no

obvious conspiracy—why does Elizabeth refuse to allow

If there was a real conspiracy film the title wouldn’t be anonymous. Anon disavows

an identification of anyone as the author. The title correctly describes with the film

presents but it doesn’t allow us to translate the bits into stable bibliographical

codes.

The film is bad, but it’s bad because it is about something interesting.

Shakespeare’s sister was anonymous (a woman).

Polonius parallel—cited by Jonson first in conjunction with torture to locate plays of

de Vere; then closet scene re-enacted by de Vere when a thief in the house steals

only some of his papers—it’s not clear whey he has taken a few papers and not all of

them.

The poster is closer to what Anonymous does.  A kind of JacksonPollock action writing--spilled ink that blots out rather thanrecovers a whitewashed or wallpapers layer.   Ink quill as a kind of

23

defacement tool, not a writing instrument.

Different ways of showing textWithholding, delay, and delivery, like in King Lear and Richard III; singed HV Jonson discovers—reaction shot first. Putting up the JC, Hamlet, Macbeth posters (fire precedes it)

Immediate delivery—the manuscripts of JC, R and J,

No delivery—Oxford’s poems. We never se the text in readable form; with lady in waiting, we don’t even know what he is writing about.

Delivery only on DVD using the pause function. Then we see text crossed out and repeated.

No One wrote Shakespeare

Anonymous is an original film. There’s really nothing else quite like it.

Unauthor -ability as a kind of attachment disorder of title to medium and of media

to author. The most basic paratextual information—title and author—are in play.

There is one case where Dekker, in the audience refers to his Shoemaker’s Holiday,

and Marlowe says it was a bomb. He also pronounces the end of Ben Jonson’s career

after he is arrested and the play closed (this scene recalls the scene in Shakespeare

in Love where the theater is closed but Elizabeth reopens it). Oxford wrote in his

father-in-law’s name, he says. So Jonson says that’s not official, but de Vere shuts

him up with “Of course, not. But you’re free.” So anonymity is a kind of get out of

jail free card.

There’s no real tomb in the play, no burial place, no archaeological dig (THAT might

have worked as an opening frame). There’s encryption without a crypt. The film’s a

cipher. There is no Shakespeare Code the title of a book).

Anonymous is about the “death of the authored,” as it were, of the text as dead and

24

gone, buried, stained. There's no possibility of resurrection in the film, just

insurrection. It's like the de Vere as anonymous (never “Shakespeare”) installs a

series of political effects that play out tragically.

All writing is effectively anonymous, and all heirs to Eliz are bastards.

So authorship is never legit; nor is politics in the narrow sense. Intrigue and

insurrection. That's all you get. Very Jacobean in a way.

Anonymous is really about Hamlet insofar as the film can be said to be really about

anything. Its about Hamlet as a play about ghostwriting. It’s about the ink stain as

revelation. “the inker’s hand.” Also blood on one’s hand. There’s a visible link

between ink and blood stains when the young de Vere kills the thief who stole his

papers. The film has no interest in attaching text to author. It shows papers and

authors in proximity, but we never even get the title of a play, not the way that is

shut, not A Midsummer Night’s Dream, not even the sonnets. Shakespeare’s name

and his works are connected by Jacobi is his opening monologue, but not one title is

mentioned. Nothing in the film about published plays, just about manuscripts in “his

own handwriting.” The film implies that the manuscripts by Oxford still exist.

The text marking years drops out, other conventions like dissolves to indicate

flashback kick in even though the flashback sequences are not shot as flashbacks.

The character is not actually having flashback. There’s nothing subjective or

interior; they are just as “objective” as all of the other sequences.

So 27 minutes into the film, we have three actors playing de Vere, two playing

Elizabeth, the same actor playing old Cecil (old in make up), two playing the younger

25

Cecil. Even the casting young and old characters is inconsistent.

26