Before a single word is written about this film, I must admit that Roland Emmerich, a man responsible for Stargate, Independence Day, The Patriot, The Day After Tomorrow, and 2012, is a guilty pleasure of mine. He has established himself as a true guru of popcorn filmmaking, and with the exception of a major misstep in 1997’s Godzilla, I have loved him with so much of my heart that none is left to protest, so I must admit he stands directly in my critical blind spot, but still I feared his latest effort was not to be.
In fairness, Emmerich admitted that 2012 was his final curtain call in action epics and he would move into a different field immediately. Making a transition from the king of apocalyptic thrillers to a period drama may have proved daunting for countless filmmakers, but Emmerich shows that his talent with melodrama so present in previous films as a hustle of the audience’s emotions is not the only trick up his sleeve.
The notion that Shakespeare was not the author of his world famous plays is not an old one, it is merely one of many billion intriguing conspiracy theories that is without merit and functions solely on facts muddied by the ever-expanding veil of history. The most popular of these theories is that Shakespeare’s plays were ghost written by Edward de Vere, peer and courtier of Elizabeth I, and this film seeks to portray how this could have been possible.
By wrapping itself in the cloak of distant history, the film could have been an exercise of pure fabrication, but by choosing instead to have actors portray verifiable figures of Elizabethan England, the story is instantly more engrossing. What follows will undoubtedly stagger any previous detractor of Emmerich’s filmmaking; his scribe, John Orloff, hits a grand slam with an impeccably literate and dense story that plays reverently with the time period.
All the trappings of Shakespeare’s plays, and indeed the themes that inspired them, are present: conspiracy, blackmail, deception, murder, love, power mongering, incest, scandal, class struggles, adultery, friendship, political intrigue, insanity, remorse, and dozens more subjects dance effortlessly together from start to finish. For a man who has been accused of producing sound and fury signifying nothing at the box office, this one is so dense it requires complete attention and will likely inspire those interested to read up on history to find where fact differs from fiction. Even with the obvious cases of dramatic license, it’s shocking how much holds true.
By this same measure, the film often has so many characters intertwining with so many others over such a long time that a fair amount of the audience may invest in dandruff shampoo due to incessant head scratching. This is the most powerful slight I can level at the film, even with the knowledge that it’s easy to watch it again to help correct this confusion. Many of the critics deriding this film draw their criticism from the fictional plot, but conscience doth make cowards of them all. Film is, after all, such stuff as dreams are made on.
E-mail Bryan at ExaminerFilm@gmail.com for questions, advice, opinions, and suggestions. Questions, advice, and opinions may be posted anonymously (ha-HA!). Follow Bryan on Twitter at ExaminerFilm.
Comments