Shady Shakespeare and just plain bad Brontë

The Thames in Shakespearian London, an example of the CGI work in the new film Anonymous. See more Anonymous publicity stills at IGN.com

It's weird: I can see a film like Anonymous, which plays fast and loose with any number of historical facts, and enjoy it just fine, disbelief fully suspended, but give me a 2009 Masterpiece Theatre version of Wuthering Heights where Heathcliff shoots himself, and I'm ready to hang the scriptwriter.

I'm not sure what it is; I understand that events need to be combined, compressed and maybe even conflated for the sake of dramatic license, but veering from the text of Emily Brontë's masterpiece is just unnecessary. It has plenty of drama, excitement, and action already, it doesn't need firearms. Plus, we're meant to think that Heathcliff pined away for Cathy, and was beckoned to death by her, a much more gothic way to die.

Rhys Ifan as Edward deVere, pays tribute to
 Elizabeth I, played by Vanessa Redgrave.

Anonymous intertwines the story of how Edward deVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, was the true author of the plays allegedly written by William Shakespeare with the Essex plot against Elizabeth I. According to the film, deVere tried to recruit playwright Ben Jonson, but Shakespeare found out and claimed authorship himself.

Oh, and that Elizabeth I gave birth to six illegitimate children. Wow, never heard that before. That's not a spoiler, by the way. Who she gives birth to is the big deal plot point.

The film portrays Shakespeare as stupid, petty, and venal. He is a buffoon, as well as a blackmailer, and the Earl is embarrassed by having him front for his plays. Why do I not mind that the greatest literary genius in the English language is so maligned? Because I am not an Oxfordian, as the group of people who believe this stuff call themselves. It's just a lark to me, and I appreciate the amazing look of this film.

The filmmakers have used a new computer imaging process and built 70 sets to bring Shakespeare's London to life, and it is a glorious, filthy, muddy mess. There are aerial shots of the city and the Thames that are breathtaking. It shows Elizabeth's funeral procession coming down the Thames with thousands of people lining the banks in tribute.

It was an amazing David Lean-esque shot. One problem: Elizabeth's real procession was on land; the Thames didn't freeze that year. That's the kind of stuff that's all over this film, so you're better off not even thinking about it. They wrap a real mystery —who really killed playwright Christopher Marlowe — into their plot, and make it seem like he was bumped off because he "knew too much." He had also been dead for five years in 1598, when the movie was set.

Edward deVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford.

It didn't used to be Oxford. The origin target of the conspiracy theorists was Sir Francis Bacon. I've heard that one all my life. Apparently all this stuff about the Virgin Queen giving birth was wrapped into the Oxfordian theory back in 1934, because of the Earl of Oxford's relationship with Her Majesty. I've never believed the idea that Elizabeth never had sex, but there's plenty of ways to do that that don't involve intercourse. I'm just saying....

The IMDB message boards for this film are a robust back and forth about the historicity of the film the debate about the authorship of the plays with a healthy dose of name-calling. The whole controversy is rather like the evolution/creationism argument. One side has an overwhelming number of facts and coincidences; the other, blind faith.

Oxfordians accuse the academic community of believing in the man from Stratford as an article of faith, that we are too afraid to even debate them because our entire existence is on the line. They accuse us of believing in the "magic" of genius. They actually make the argument that scientists were sure continents didn't move, but then plate tectonics were discovered.

I believe in the genius of Shakespeare the way I believe in the genius of Mozart, who seemed to be a mere conduit for some mysterious wellspring of music.

Some people say, what's the difference? I guess it would be that Americans love a good Horatio Alger story, and Shakespeare, the son of a glove maker, becoming the most celebrated author in the English language makes a much better story than some highly educated earl.

So, go along with the joke, or check it out and agree with them, I don't care. But you should see this film, or you will miss some great filmmaking. And Vanessa Redgrave and her granddaughter Joley Richardson playing the old and young Elizabeth I.

Tom Hardy (his real name, you suppose?) and
Charlotte Riley, who spend a lot of time snogging
on the moors in this version of Wuthering Heights.

But stay far, far away from that wretched Wuthering Heights. For one thing, if you are a fan of the book and the 1939 film, you will miss many of your favorite scenes and lines; they're just not there.

One site called Bronte Blog had reaction to this misbegotten version of Wuthering Heights, and my favorite comment was about lead actor Tom Hardy's Heathcliff, saying he "looks like rock star Jack White auditioning for a Tim Burton film and behaves as if directed to discover synonyms for scowl, glower, and skulk unknown to Roget." That's some great stuff!

Hardy wasn't quite menacing enough, and it was highly annoying that Heathcliff and Cathy spent a good bit of time rolling around on top of each other. Of all I times I have imagined Penniston Crag, I never thought of it as Make Out Point.

So, ultimately, I guess the difference is you can muck about with facts, but don't screw with the text. Wow, I really am an English teacher.