WHY WE CARE


Plugged In exists to shine a light on the world of popular entertainment while giving you and your family the essential tools you need to understand, navigate and impact the culture in which we live. Through reviews, articles and discussions, we want to spark intellectual thought, spiritual growth and a desire to follow the command of Colossians 2:8: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."

YOUR STORIES


Family uses Plugged In as a ‘significant compass’

"I am at a loss for words to adequately express how much it means to my husband and me to know that there is an organization like Focus that is rooting for us. Just today I was reading Psalm 37 and thinking about how your ministry provides ways to 'dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture.' We have two teenagers and an 8-year-old in our household...Plugged In has become a significant compass for our family. All three of our kids are dedicated to their walk with Christ but they still encounter challenges. Thanks for all of your research and persistence in helping us navigate through stormy waters."

Plugged In helps college student stand-up for his belief

"Thanks for the great job you do in posting movie and television reviews online. I’m a college freshman and I recently had a confrontational disagreement with my English professor regarding an R-rated film. It is her favorite movie and she wanted to show it in class. I went to your Web site to research the film’s content. Although I had not seen the movie myself, I was able to make an educated argument against it based on the concerns you outlined. The prof said that she was impressed by my stand and decided to poll the whole class and give us a choice. We overwhelmingly voted to watch a G-rated movie instead! I’ve learned that I can trust your site and I will be using it a lot in the future.”

Plugged In brings ‘Sanity and Order’ to Non-believer

“Even though I don’t consider myself a Christian, I find your Plugged In Web site useful and thought-provoking. No one reviews movies like you do. Instead of being judgmental, you put entertainment ‘on trial.’ After presenting the evidence, you allow the jury of your readers to decide for themselves what they should do. In my opinion, you bring sanity and order to the wild world of modern day entertainment. Keep up the good work!”

Mom thinks Plugged In is the ‘BEST Christian media review site’

"Our family doesn't go to the movies until we go online and check out your assessment of a given film. I think this is the BEST Christian media review website that I've found, and I recommend it to my family and friends. Keep up the good work!"

SUPPORT THE WORK OF PLUGGED IN

Our hope is that whether you're a parent, youth leader or teen, the information and tools at Plugged In will help you and your family make appropriate media decisions. We are privileged to do the work we do, and are continually thankful for the generosity and support from you, our loyal readers, listeners and friends.

PLUGGED IN RATING

Watch This Review

We hope this review was both interesting and useful. Please share it with family and friends who would benefit from it as well.

Movie Review

Oh, Shakespeare, Shakespeare, wherefore art thou, Shakespeare? Art thou truly the writer we thinkest, creating works of majesty and grace (thatst no-one can any longer understand without grave and ruddy difficulty) from thine artful brow? Art thou truly as great as rumored, prithee? Or didst thou simply take thy quill and scribble thine name on another man's parchment? If true, I have but few words for thee: Alack! Forsooth! Begone, yon blaggard, before my mangled prose finds thee and punishes thee (despite thou being deadst for lo these eternal centuries) with yet more and higher tortured uses of thine and thou and thusly.

Whew. Clearly, writing like William Shakespeare ain't easy. Most scholars agree that only one man really wrote very successfully like Shakespeare, and that would be … Shakespeare. The guy reportedly used more than 31,500 words in his plays (most of us have an everyday working vocabulary of 1,500-2,000 words, though we know many, many more), including about 1,700 he may have invented. (I try to invent words, too, but my editor has this nasty habit of looking things up in the dictionary.) Shakespeare's been called the "Soul of the Age" and was revered by contemporaries and practically worshipped in Victorian times.

But not everyone believes that Shakespeare actually wrote Shakespeare's plays. Some believe he was merely a front—an Elizabethan-era Milli Vanilli, if you will. There are those who doubt that a working-class actor, born to apparently illiterate parents, could pound out ageless works of high literature. It must've been someone else … maybe philosopher Francis Bacon or contemporary dramatist Christopher Marlowe or an infinite number of monkeys, typing on an infinite number of typewriters.

Or, suggests this film's director, Roland Emmerich, it could've been Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford.

The theory, according to Emmerich, goes like this: Maybe the Earl—in an effort to put his illegitimate son a little closer to the throne (inhabited by the aging Queen Elizabeth)—decided to influence public opinion by virtue of some ol' plays of his. And maybe he figured it'd look bad at court if he came out as the author. So maybe he hired some middling, down-on-his-luck poet to put his name on the plays—and when that poet (some guy named Ben Jonson, the bane of many a college English major) backed out, some unscrupulous, philandering, drunken, mostly illiterate actor decided to take credit himself.

And maybe the Earl had an affair with the queen—who was also his mother. And he married his adoptive father's daughter, only his adoptive father was secretly his real father, making his wife his sister. And maybe he wrote A Midsummer Night's Dream when he was 12, when most Elizabethan children were still learning the difference between their fortwixts and besmirches.

Yeah, it could've been like that, Emmerich says.

(Personally, I like the monkey theory better.)

Advertisement

Positive Elements

We can give the Earl of Oxford grudging accolades for looking out for the best interests of his son. He even offers up his own life in exchange for his progeny's. And we can acknowledge that Ben Jonson falls in love with the earl's beautiful work—risking his own life and freedom to see that both the plays and the author's true identity are preserved.

Spiritual Content

The Elizabethan age was a time of great religious strife, when Catholics and Protestants would routinely go to war to vie for the soul of Europe. We hear rumors of this anxiousness throughout the movie: The Protestant queen sends the Earl of Essex and his associate, the Earl of Southampton, to Ireland to put down a Catholic rebellion. And she references her one-time Catholic rivals, Queen Mary and Mary Queen of Scots.

Yet despite the hyper-religious backdrop, Elizabeth is not, in Emmerich's telling, terribly religious; she quips that if plays aren't very Christian, "I hope I won't find my salvation until very late in life." Nor is the Earl of Oxford—who when told his habitual writing could put his immortal soul in peril, says, "My poems are my soul." Of the film's ostensible protagonists, then, only the Earl of Essex shows any particular religious feeling at all—shouting "God save the queen!" a second before he's beheaded.

Meanwhile, the loathsome antagonists—William Cecil, Elizabeth's duplicitous advisor, and his toady humpbacked son Robert—are shown to be quite religious, with William praising Robert for the gifts ("cunning and ruthlessness") God gave him. The two plot to kill rivals, saying, "God does indeed require our help in this matter."

But nowhere is Cecil's "faith" more apparent than when it comes to literature. Cecil, who takes Oxford in when the earl's a young man, tells him that he can't write while living with him. "Thou shalt not worship false idols in my house," Cecil says, claiming that plays are the "work of the devil."

"But surely there must be room for beauty and light within life?" Oxford asks.

"Not in this household," Cecil says.

This sentiment permeates the entire Cecil clan, including Oxford's pious wife who loathes her husband's literary pastime. And such religiosity is further emphasized by the fact that family members are the only characters we see praying.

There's a certain irony in all this, of course: Historically, William Cecil understood the value of literature (at least as a political tool), and was instrumental in getting great European classics translated into English.

"All art is political," Oxford says. "Otherwise, it'd be mere decoration." And Emmerich himself has said as much in interviews. So I think it's fair to say the contrast between the director's (admittedly flawed) protagonists and religious antagonists tells us something: Religion, in Emmerich's eyes, is the inherent enemy of art (and, by extension, love and verve).

At one point, Oxford's wife suggests that his need to write is a form of possession. Oxford allows that it might be true.

Sexual Content

Near the end of the film, it's revealed that Cecil and the queen had a tryst, resulting in the Earl of Oxford. Then Oxford had a fling with the queen, producing the Earl of Southampton. "You never know with the Tudors," Robert Cecil quips. "They've all had such strange tastes in bedfellows."

Of these various consummations, audiences see one—Oxford and Elizabeth frantically making out in her chambers after a party. Oxford's already married by then, but no matter, the two smooch like crazy, and later we see him wooing her, reciting poetry while shirtless. (Neither of them know they're related.)

The Earl of Essex, through means that I'm a bit unsure of, was also Elizabeth's illegitimate child. And it's suggested that the Earl of Southampton may be homosexual. Shakespeare and a prostitute are shown in coital relations. (We see a portion of his bare backside before he's pulled off the woman and she demands money.) We see other prostitutes soliciting passersby. Oxford makes out with one of Elizabeth's maidservants.

Elizabeth, while watching one of Oxford's plays, unbuttons her dress (shocking her ladies-in-waiting). Later, she's presented with a copy of the erotic Shakespearian poem "Venus and Adonis"—the movie suggesting it was written especially for Elizabeth to inspire warm thoughts toward her onetime lover. Someone makes a lewd reference to a codpiece. Feeling emotional at a play, a male audience member grabs another man's hand. (The other man jerks free.)

Violent Content

When a fellow poet (Christopher Marlowe) threatens to reveal Shakespeare's secret, it's insinuated that Shakespeare himself kills the man. The act isn't shown, but we do see Marlow's dead body in the street, his throat cut.

Oxford's assaulted by his fencing instructor, receiving a nasty gash in the leg before running his teacher through. The earl also stabs and kills someone who's rummaging through his writings. A would-be assassin nearly shoots Essex, but instead is shot himself. Several soldiers and dozens of peasants are gunned down, quelling what would seem to be a rebellion against the queen. A man is beheaded. Another man is savagely beaten and tortured.

Actors spit fire and are pelted with vegetables. Battle scenes are re-created onstage. A play starts a riot. A theater is set ablaze.

Crude or Profane Language

One use of "a‑‑," three of "b‑‑tard" (though it is used correctly in context) and loads of uses of the British profanity "bloody." "B-llocks" is also heard. God's name is misused about 10 times.

Drug and Alcohol Content

In addition to all his other faults, Shakespeare drinks quite a lot, including when he's in the middle of a performance. (He denies it.) Jonson, jealous of Shakespeare and all the undue attention he's getting, begins drinking heavily, spouting off inebriated screeds. Several scenes take place in taverns. Nobles drink wine.

Other Negative Elements

Conclusion

Let's just say it: Most scholars believe the premise behind Anonymous is bunk, and the film doesn't do anything to make it seem any more plausible. The chronology is all wrong and the familial bonds are so fantastically, audaciously weird as to make the relationships in the Star Wars saga (Darth Vader built C-3PO and R2-D2 was the family trash compactor!) seem almost plausible by comparison.

But even setting aside the questions of historical accuracy, the movie itself is just not very good. It's confusing and seems to overstretch its given runtime (130 minutes) by about four hours. And the sex, incest and apparent anti-faith themes do little more than seal its fate: Let loose the rotten veggies!

Pro-social Content

Objectionable Content

Summary Advisory

Plot Summary

Christian Beliefs

Other Belief Systems

Authority Roles

Profanity/Violence

Kissing/Sex/Homosexuality

Discussion Topics

Additional Comments/Notes

Episode Reviews

Credits

Rating

PG-13

Readability Age Range

Genre

Drama

Author

Cast

Rhys Ifans as The Earl of Oxford; Vanessa Redgrave as Queen Elizabeth I; Sebastian Armesto as Ben Jonson; Rafe Spall as William Shakespeare; David Thewlis as William Cecil; Edward Hogg as Robert Cecil; Xavier Samuel as The Earl of Southampton; Sam Reid as The Earl of Essex

Distributor

Sony Pictures

Network

Performance

Record Label

Platform

Publisher

In Theaters

October 28, 2011

On Video

February 7, 2012

Year Published

Awards

Reviewer

Paul Asay

We hope this review was both interesting and useful. Please share it with family and friends who would benefit from it as well.

Get weekly e-news, Culture Clips & more!