The tale of Anonymous spans decades of the late 16th/early 17th centuries, a framework densely adorned by a love affair between young De Vere (Jamie Campbell Bower) and cougar Queen Elizabeth I (Joely Richardson), a succession scheme guided by wicked royal counselors William and Robert Cecil (David Thewlis and Edward Hogg), and the scandalous dramatic output from De Vere's own quill -- handed off to disapproving London playwright Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) before finding a willing adopter in the roguish Shakespeare (Rafe Spall). If it sounds like a lot to process, well... It is. But thanks to both Ifans and Vanessa Redgrave's moody modulations as the older De Vere and Elizabeth (as well as Emmerich's noteworthy Shakespearean stagings), the emotional reach of Anonymous matches its narrative reach stride for stride.
Ifans sat down with Movieline recently to discuss the film, his role, his relationship to Shakespeare, the authorship controversy -- and preparing to live with a little movie he made called The Amazing Spider-Man.
So! What's going on?
Oh, you know. A lot of talk about Shakespeare.
It's funny, because this is partly a film of ideas. Did you go back and brush up at all in anticipation of this day?
No. I brushed up before and during. Actually, I said earlier, "I realize now why Shakespeare may have been anonymous -- so he wouldn't have to do press junkets." [Laughs] But in truth, it's good to talk about it. Obviously, while you're shooting, you're kind of immersed in the character. In talking about it, it kind of gives you a certain clarity around the themes that are brought to light in the film.
The Stratfordians are going to be pissed.
Yeah. Yeah... But I don't see the authorship debate as an element in the film. It's also a love story and a wonderfully populated political thriller. And there are moments of lightness and frivolity in the film, which are delightful. For me, the enduring effect it had on me as a spectator was how powerful and magical the theater would have been at that time. I think the scenes shot in the Globe in particular are just thrilling. I can only imagine if this film did for live theater what Rocky did for boxing, then we're kind of there with it.
And I do think there is a natural tendency when you're speaking to journalists for the focus to be on the authorship debate -- which, of course, is a very interesting and necessary debate. But I think the film's bigger than that. The film's about the complete works of Shakespeare and Elizabethan England as opposed to who the author was. And I suppose that's the power of the film: It celebrates this immense body of work.
When you were watching the productions in the Globe from De Vere's booth, were you thinking, "Goddamnit -- I wish I was on that stage right now"?
Oh, God. Absolutely. As would De Vere. Oxford would have felt the same. Largely, the majority of the film was shot against greenscreen or in a studio, but we actually built the theater. You did get a very 3-D, vivid, anthropological feeling from being in that space and hearing the words spoken in that acoustic. It was really, really moving, actually. The first scene we shot was when Mark Rylance walks out as the Prologue [of Henry V], and it was kind of a no-acting-required situation for me, because I was up there, and it was really so transporting, and I remember at the time thinking, "I really hope the magic I'm feeling in this space right now will translate in the cinema." And I really think it has, more than any other production I've seen about Shakespeare or that time. It just felt so alive -- and consequently really moving.
I was going to ask how those scenes were shot. Was it all done live? You were watching the performances along the way?
Absolutely. It would have been a lazy way to shoot the scenes where you just shot me out. We could have done that in the morning; Roland might say, "OK, you watching Hamlet. Now you're watching..." But no. Everyone was there for each and every performance -- the audience and the actors -- and it became something really, really exciting.
Like shooting a rock concert or something.
Yeah, absolutely.
So how did this come to you in the first place?
There's a casting director, Leo David, in London, and I was sent a script. I went to meet with Roland, and he asked the same question he asked of every actor: "Which character to you respond to in this script?" And I said, "I guess, given my past work, a lazy director would probably [expect I'd] say William Shakespeare. But a brave, courageous director would say the Earl of Oxford." And thankfully Roland was courageous, brave and imaginative enough to audition me for that part.
What do you mean by "courageous and brave"?
An unimaginative casting director in England, for instance, might say, "Oh, Rhys Ifans would be perfect to play William Shakespeare" -- kind of a lighter comedic role. I'm glad I got to play De Vere because I'm glad I got the part, but I also think that Rafe Spall has just done magic with that part [of Shakespeare]. There's this frivolous buoyancy that he single-handedly maintains. And I think that's a great foil to De Vere.
This film posits that De Vere wrote Shakespeare's plays. Assuming we accept that as truth for the story's sake, how did the spirit of having written those words affect playing the character?
That's a very, very good question. One fundamental moment for me, even though it comes a ways into the film, was sitting in the Globe and hearing the words spoken by a company of actors. Choosing -- or having -- to believe that I penned these beautiful things, and to see their effects on these people, must have been at once liberating and enlightening and crushing at the same time in the sense that we wasn't able to proclaim or announce his authorship. That must have been utterly crippling. And reading about Oxford, we learn that Oxford was a very, very interesting character in his own right -- very flamboyant, dressed differently than the rest of the [queen's] court. So I guess there must have been a craving in him for notoriety that reveals itself, possibly, in his attire or his slightly mischievous, anarchic behavior in and out of the court. I found that very interesting, because for someone who wanted to be anonymous, surely you'd be completely anonymous. There must have been a side of him that suicidally wanted the world to know. But for a nobleman to have written for the theater at that time would have been at best frowned-upon, and at best seen as an act of high treason.
Every actor from the UK has his or her own relationship with the dominant themes in Anonymous: Shakespeare, royal family, royal politics, class... How did these factors influence the way you approached De Vere, if at all?
I guess, if I was a slave to my politics, I should be a Stratfordian. I should believe that this peasant boy from Stratford went on to pen all these works, and why on Earth shouldn't he? But I can't do that when you look at the body of evidence. I'm not for one second an Oxfordian fundamentalist, and no one will know for certain who penned these great works. But I do think it's our duty as actors and directors and audiences to ask that question. The reason these plays are visited time and time again proves that. Any actor wants to know about the author of the play, and we do in most cases because that enlightens as to why certain characters were written. It can only benefit your portrayal or you understanding of a piece of work. So it's important to ask that question. And I think that all great art never strives to answer any questions; it just asks the appropriate ones at the appropriate time. It's always good to revisit history. I think it's very healthy to do that. And if we call this a conspiracy theory, then I don't think Roland or John have written a conspiracy theory from a place of bitterness or anger or paranoia. I think it's a conspiracy theory that kind of joyous and celebratory and mischievous.
Roland isn't culturally known as an "idea" guy, or a director of actors, so--
No, I don't know. I beg to differ. I think what separates Roland from his big blockbuster contemporaries is that if you look at all of Roland's films, yes: They are set against a huge apocalyptic canvas. But all of these stories are populated by very real people. The stories that are set on this huge backdrop are very domestic and real, and I'm sure Roland would tell you there's a common denominator in all of his films. There's always a father-son relationship. Roland will say it himself. He was very close to his father. The same is true of this with Oxford and his son, and in many ways, the plays themselves are Oxford's children. I imagined, "What would it be like to see your children every day and not be able to tell them you're their father."
That's fascinating. And when you have a character like this, about whom relatively little is known compared to today, how much of your job is to balance ideas like those with the existing historical record?
Actually, Oxford's life is very well-documented in comparison to William Shakespeare of Stratford. Not in terms of his authorship, but his travels in Europe and his life in and out of court, his relationship with Elizabeth... These are all documented. But when that's all said and done, you have to bring something of yourself. You have to supply your own metaphors and your own poetry to tell that story. That's always thrilling and interesting and rewarding.
How did you approach the scene with Vanessa Redgrave? How did you two figure out how to play that?
We didn't figure it out, because [the characters] hadn't seen each other for a very long time. We didn't rehearse. What I did do was... Well, Roland -- luckily, not consciously -- had shot many of the scenes with Joely and Jamie [Campbell Bower], who plays the younger me. All those scenes were pretty much shot before myself and Vanessa started shooting. So I watched those scenes. And when I walked into that room, I had a very vivid visual memory reference, which really moved me deeply. Because what I saw in young Oxford was this eternal optimism -- this youthful optimism that was so seductive and beautiful, and must have been to Elizabeth as well. And what we're presented with gradually throughout the film is the suffocation of that optimism, which I find really deeply moving.
What was the source of that optimism? What was the source of his creative impulse -- at least for you, playing the character?
It would have been not knowing where he was from -- not knowing his father or his mother, and having been moved from pillar to post as a child. He was put in a place where he had to invent a history for himself, so I guess that's where his storytelling may have come from. And also, he was surrounded by a stifling household -- the Cecil household. It would have been a form of escapism. He was a multi-linguist, well-traveled. Some of these plays would have been political weaponry, and others would have been love letters to a queen that he wasn't allowed to see.
Going off-topic: We've seen the fervor growing around the Spider-Man reboot. Are you bracing yourself for the next six to eight months of having that in your life?
No, I just did the gig. If you think about it too much, it just... But of course I'm really proud of it. I haven't seen it yet, obviously. But again, that was working with Marc Webb. Of course it's a huge franchise with a massive budget, but essentially for me it was a kind of father-son story and emotionally very domestic. But in terms of the whole publicity machine and all that, I'm kind of excited.
So Marc bring some intimacy to it? Was that the sense you got?
Absolutely. On paper, you'd think, "Oh, what a strange choice." But it actually makes total sense. He works very quietly with actors, with loving attention to emotional detail. And for a film painted on such a wide canvas, you have to have that forensic-ness to counter the size -- to keep kind of an emotional balance in the piece. Hopefully, I think that's what we've achieved. We'll see.
Anonymous opens Friday in limited-wide release.
Follow S.T. VanAirsdale on Twitter.
Follow Movieline on Twitter.
[Top photo: Getty Images]