3 Reasons Why "Anonymous" was not "Amadeus"

With the release of the movie Anonymous today, directed by Roland Emmerich and based on the fringe theory that William Shakespeare did not, in fact, pen any of his many great pieces of English literature, I decided to fork over my matinee showing fee, hoping for a great conspiracy. This model of piquing movie goers' interests with tabloid-esque story lines of classic art celebrities has worked before, certainly, on me. For instance, even though I came late to the viewership, I fell in love with Mozart all over again last month when I saw the 1987 Oscar winning movie, Amadeus. Like Anonymous, Amadeus followed a historically dubious story line -- that one based on a heated jealousy between Mozart and his musical peer, Salieri. A complete plot synopsis can be found here, but, suffice it to say, the movie did wonders not only for Mozart but for Salieri as well, boosting both composers' operatic works up the chains of the popular opera performance repertoire. Disappointingly, I don't foresee any similar spike coming to Shakespeare after this film. (Thankfully, I also don't think Shakespeare has anything to worry about regarding popularity.) Here are three reasons why I don't think Anonymous lived up to its potential.

1. Poor Storytelling
At first, the framed narrative of Anonymous resembles Amadeus with a modern day actor reading off the tragedy's prelude. We learn that Shakespeare's life is not as it has been taught to us, but rather, political undercurrents from centuries ago have kept the truth of Shakespeare's identity concealed. The movie flashes back to Elizabethan England where, immediately, the film's potential begins to unravel. Storytelling is performed like hopscotch, transitioning among at least three distinct periods of Queen Elizabeth's life over a dozen times throughout the movie. Subplots supporting the legitimacy of the fringe theory are glossed over in rushed vignettes. We learn that Queen Elizabeth's court may have had great importance in concealing Shakespeare's identity, but we never truly feel it. That was the magic in Amadeus: not only did we believe Salieri's sinister intentions happened, we wanted to, we wanted to repaint history with our own modern brush. When we moved back and forth in Amadeus, it was only back to the narrator, keeping the series of events easily organized. At times in Anonymous, it felt the cumbersome storytelling actually attempted to hide the failings of the plot itself, keeping the viewer second guessing what was happening just to keep them intrigued. Whatever the case, the story could have benefited from a simpler chronological approach.

2. Poor Dialogue
Secondly, aside from the performance of Rhys Ifans as the Earl of Oxford and Vanessa Redgrave as Queen Elizabeth, the acting and dialogue in the movie simply did not carry the grandeur of their subject. Multiple times throughout the showing, my theater's audience openly laughed at intense scenes simply because it was not clear whether the actors and screenwriters were attempting drama... or melodrama. The portrayal of the British poor verged on parody, with every pub scene about to erupt in "99 Beers on the wall" while the royalty's two dimensional puritanism got boring far too quickly. To put it differently, I was looking for more of this and less of this. Ok, so that may be a little too exaggerated, but essentially, I was not drawn in to the Elizabethan world that the movie could have taken me to. Instead, the film came off as a feeble attempt to depict dreary England through worn out cliches. In Amadeus, even despite the fact that Mozart and many others had no accent of any kind, speaking in full American argot, the Viennese culture seeped out of each scene. I felt the struggle among the King's royal composers, Leopold's desire to see his son return home, and the pain in Mozart's wife Constanze as he slips into insanity. The movie was about the character development more than plot, and the actors delivered. Again, in Anonymous, that seemed lacking.

3. Poor Interweaving of Original Works into the Film
Lastly, and most importantly, Anonymous failed to effectively intertwine the works of the subject, i.e. Shakespeare's plays, into the storyline. Now, for those of you who rush out to the theater to prove me wrong, I will admit that there were two distinct times where the plot relied heavily on the plays, and those two times were possibly the peaks of the film. In fact, if the screenwriters had chosen to end their interweaving there, I may have been more pleased. Instead, however, the audience is bombarded with references to plays that have no bearing on the film, at one point seeing a series of five or so plays listed off within a minute. I could just hear the screenwriters (and, again, the audience members) saying to themselves, "I know that play! I know that one! This is believable now because he mentioned Romeo and Juliet!" In Amadeus, the inclusion of "The Marriage of Figaro," "The Magic Flute," "Don Giovanni," and of course, "Requiem" were integral in telling the story. We felt the composer's inner turmoil as he struggles to produce them for his both the ghost of his father and his benefactor. Here, in Anonymous, however, the works feel like mandatory accessories that need to find their way onto the screen. What little we do see into the author's writing process is nice, but not enough. How this blunder could have happened, when the material to work with is a collection of the best English plays ever written, is incomprehensible. In the end, this slip up became the overriding factor in my disappointment as I never felt I was watching a Shakespearean play, just a movie about Shakespeare.

Ok, because you got through that with me, I'll briefly state some things that I did happen to enjoy. First, the costumes, particularly those of Queen Elizabeth, were dazzling. She was a delight every time she appeared on the screen. Second, the movie ends well. I am even more demanding on movie endings than other parts because a movie's ending provides the sentiment with which it ushers you out the door. I felt they did a good job wrapping up the storyline, even throwing in some unexpected twists. Lastly, the performances of both Rhys Ifans and Vanessa Redgrave, as alluded before, were enjoyable and certainly kept the film from fully sinking. In the end, however, these tidbits were unable to make up for the general underwhelming production. I'd give it a C+ or B-.

Five Steps to Coming Out!

First thing's first, "the Twitter" is as funny as "my Myspace..." and that's why I use it exclusively when referring to our great modern meat processor of digital quote sharing.  Ok.  The Twitter is actually sort of fun, I'll admit.  For instance, tonight, I was told that there was a "Twitter Chat" regarding Gay YA characters and how they come out either before or during a book's series of events (shout out to Mom at writofwhimsy.blogspot.com for telling me of the event!!!!).  For the digitally challenged among us, myself often included in this grouping, a "Twitter Chat" is essentially a group of Tweeters'  attempt to turn The Twitter into a gigantic forum, akin to the AOL group chats of yore.  The mood is somewhat chaotic, somewhat defensive, somewhat jockeying, but, overall, energetic. Within minutes of joining and proceeding through an around-the-circle introduction of the participants (not to mention some technical reconfigurations on my end), we were talking about the continuing need for the "coming out" story among LGBT teenagers, the stereotypical characterization (or not) of Tiny in Green/Levithan's Will Grayson, Will Grayson, an apparent need for LGBT characters of color, politically active queer characters, and most likely a handful of other topics lost in the melee.

Overall, I found the firestorm of comments enlightening.  For one, there were many straight authors/readers who were genuinely interested in learning about the nuances of gay characters, specifically making them authentic while avoiding the label of stereotypical.  It was also enjoyable seeing books being referred to that I have read myself, as well as the mini critiques and reviews that the participants had of them.  From the glimpse into the industry through this online microcosm, I can tell that there are certainly a market of readers who enjoy this topic and a wealth of authors ready to feed their interests.

So what do I think of the actual prompt for the conversation, i.e. having gay characters come out either pre-story or during story (not to mention the option of post-story which a certain aspiring author may be incorporating...)?  Well here is a short list of attributes of "coming out" for a gay person that I think are somewhat universal for an author to consider, specifically, whether he/she wants to include the range of emotions and trials associated with them.

1. Coming out internally may be the most important realization to a gay person up to that point in his/her life.
When I say "internally" here, I literally mean a person being able to think to themselves, "yeah I'm gay" or at least, "yeah, I think I am not entirely straight."  It takes a lot for a person, especially with difficult and strict upbringings, to even go to this place in their head...and many people don't for a very long time or at all.  Despite what any gay activist person tells you, our society is still run with heterosexuality as the "norm" or "default."  Because of this, when a person is willing to go to this place in their head, it inevitably (for some amount of time, at least) leads to....

2. A sense of "different" or "outcast" after internally coming out. 
Now, here is where I might get some difference of opinion.  I know many people who have grown up knowing they are gay and have said they never felt any sense of judgment, stigma, or ridicule.  For these people, I say, be thankful.  But to them, I will also say that even if no one ever said anything derogatory, there is simply some level of "us" and "them" that occurs, even if "them" are very, very, nice, accepting people.  This is why X-Men and most comic books sell so well with young gay males, we like the sense that these individuals have some ostracization from society.  In the worst cases, fire, brimstone, excommunication, and eternal damnation provide that subtle wall between "us" and "them." In any situation, the manual for growing up gay is still being chartered, and until recently, was nowhere to be found in media.

3. The dreaded "closet."
This period technically occurs in time with number two above, although it may continue indefinitely, even after any sense of difference or outcast has dissolved away.  As most people know, it's a time where people keep the secret to themselves, even when the entire world knows (see Anderson Cooper).  For the most part, this period in a gay individual's life is also where lookers-on will garner the information they need for the always entertaining "I always knew, you idiot" when the person actually does come out. It can be a painful time though, producing multiple faces for different crowds, duplicity, internal loathing, explosions of emotional turmoil, etc.  Nowadays, I would say that this period has been significantly decreased in duration from the lifetime of closethood of actors like Rock Hudson or Cary Grant.

4. The secret coming out
I don't think I have ever heard of an individual coming out to every single person he or she knows at once, in one single public service announcement.  It just doesn't happen.  Instead, we rely on our best girlfriends, guy friends, moms, dads, aunts, teachers, counselors, or even the insanely romantic, first love interest to tell someone else in the world that we are gay.  From there, we process the reaction (hopefully, if the person has been chosen strategically, the reaction will be favorable), and, usually, this one confidant helps us move forward in telling more people.

5. The public coming out
After we have waited for the coagulation of brain matter to subside after realizing we're gay, feeling like we have no place in society, and actually vocalizing this to another individual, we begin accepting what this might look like on a grander scale...after we get past the damn drama.  As stated in the Twitter Chat, this stage really never ends.  I have probably come out about thirty times in my life to different peers, coworkers, etc, but that first time is always different.  Often it's not planned, scheduled or even independently administered.  Often it's brought on as self-acceptance grows and comments, mannerisms, demeanor, and worldviews change to the point that someone says, "hey, you know what, I never thought about this, but are you gay?" "Why yes, best friend, I am."   At that point, things spread, people ask for confirmation, guys come up to you for your number, girls ask to go shopping, Facebook begins posting ads for skimpy Australian swimwear, and you get "The Big Book of Being Gay" in the mail (I wish on the last one).

After that, CONGRATULATIONS! You're "out," officially!  Authors have to ask themselves, is this an event in the life of my character that I want to even delve into?  It could take a chapter or three or twenty...and maybe that's not the story you want to tell.  Maybe you want to jump in midstream, or to the part where they begin repeating "yes I'm gay" like a one phrase Tickle Me Elmo. That's really up to the author. But I do agree with my fellow Gay YA twitter chat members that this arc will certainly hold an important part in young LGBT people's lives for a good amount of time into the future.

Carpe Cafe

As a brief update: I am still alive, though this blog may have been in a state of coma for the last five months. But, during that time I wrote a book. So there.

Now then. I have easily spent the majority of my non work/non sleeping time at cafes recently, and, one of the things that always gets me is the quantity of cringe worthy conversations I hear from my fellow patrons. I'm not meaning to be outright judgmental...although I can be, if you wanted, regardless, I'm sorry, but the inclusion of the assertion that "I'm not like most people," anytime, in any context, is inexcusable. I don't care if your passion for the Toms charitable business structure comes from a place of seeing good Samaritanism "brought down to where people actually know what they're giving someone on the other side of the world" or if you consider yourself a quasi opponent of non profits because of their inefficiencies, YOU DON'T KNOW "EVERYONE" SO DON'T MAKE THAT ASSERTION, EVER.

Anywho. Now that I got that out of my system. I'm hoping to begin posting once a week, to demonstrate my connection with other human beings through the use of modern technology. They may not be long, or that might be, I don't know. We'll see. That's all for now.