Tags
17th Century England, 17th Century Europe, All Is True, Judi Dench, Kenneth Branagh, William Shakespeare
(I realized that I had started to write a review of All is True, but neglected to finish it. I’ve forgotten at least one thing I wanted to say about this film, but I figured I’d just post this even though it’s quite brief.)
In 1613, during a performance of William Shakespeare’s play All is True (known today as Henry VIII), a fire started at the Globe Theater where the performance was happening. The fire destroyed the Globe and seems to have had pushed Shakespeare into retirement, since Henry VIII is his last known play. Shakespeare returned home to Stratford-on-Avon and died three years later. Ben Elton’s play and now movie All is True(2018, dir. Kenneth Branagh) looks at Shakespeare’s interactions with his long-neglected family in the three twilight years of Shakespeare’s life.
When Shakespeare (Kenneth Branagh) comes home, his wife Anne Hathaway (Judi Dench) has a great deal of bottled up resentment over the fact that her husband has largely ignored the family and refuses to share his bed. His daughter Judith (Katherine Wilder) has a simmering anger at him because she feels that he always loved her dead twin brother Hamnet more than her. His daughter Susanna (Lydia Wilson) is married to a Puritan who considers the theater sinful and strains the marriage by making it clear that he has more passion for God than for his wife. The still-unmarried Judith also harbors resentment toward Susanna who has given their father grandchildren.
Hamnet’s Ghost
The family is haunted emotionally by the ghost of Judith’s dead twin Hamnet, who died in 1596 when he was 11. He had written some poems that gave his father a sense that he could inherit William’s mantel as a writer, but then died when an epidemic spread through Stratford while his father was in London. Anne resents William for not returning home to grieve with her, while Judith feels that her father was so taken with Hamnet’s precocious writing skills that he simply ignored her, despite the ample evidence that she was a bright child. Shakespeare too is grieving Hamnet, both as a son and as a male heir to his legacy. Instead of talking about his sorrow, he pours his energy into laying out a new garden.
The basic situation of the Shakespeare family in 1613 is exactly as the film depicts, but almost nothing is known about the emotional life of these characters in this period, so Elton has filled in the blanks by crafting a plausible but slightly too-convenient set of dynamics based around the impact Hamnet’s death might have had on the family. On the one hand, the Shakespeares could easily have been a family torn by their inability to express their various griefs. The fact that Shakespeare was not living with his family in 1596 (because he was in London at the height of his career, earning the money that allowed his family to live in considerable comfort) might plausibly have created a deep rift by making it easy for the family to just not talk about what had happened.
On the other hand, the idea that most of the family’s complex issues all stem from Hamnet’s death all feels just a bit too pat. Because as the movie goes on, it slowly comes out that there is much more going on under the surface of the facts than is evident at first. Judith eventually reveals that it was she who wrote the poems that Hamnet gave to their father. All this time that William has been grieving the loss of his son’s talent, that talent has still been there, waiting for him to turn his gaze to Judith. Thus the play draws deeply from Cyreno de Bergerac, with William Shakespeare as Roxanne and Judith playing Cyreno to her dead brother’s Christian. It’s a powerful idea that one of the greatest writers in the English language might have been unable to recognize true talent when it was right under his nose.
But that’s not the only secret waiting to be discovered. As he talks with his family, William begins to suspect that something is rotten in the state of Stratford-on-Avon. As he looks into the details, he realizes that no one else was claimed by the infectious disease that claimed his son, which seems highly suspicious. Eventually he learns the truth that Hamnet committed suicide because he was struggling to learn to read and write, so that Judith’s help in poetry writing has raised their father’s expectations of him too high for him to ever meet. So Judith and Anne have been grieving a double tragedy, unable to share the full truth with anyone.
The film puts gender dynamics at the heart of the story, focusing on the ways in which 17th century society constrained women by denying them education and agency and placing unreasonable demands on them to have sons. In a more egalitarian period, Judith would have grown up feeling that her father was proud of her talent.
All is True is not a great film by any measure. It’s a bit too aware of its prestige status and star casting, and the story it tells is a little too neat in the way all the plots eventually come back around to Hamnet’s untimely death. But it’s a very pretty film loaded with excellent performance, and it’s a treat to see three such celebrated Shakespearean actors playing the real people in Shakespeare’s life and not just the products of his genius.
Want to Know More?
All is True is available on Amazon.
If you want to know more about William Shakespeare, you could start with Jonathan Bate’s Soul of the Age: A Biography of the Mind of William Shakespeare.
stillsunny said:
I would like to share this with my SCA group on FB. Is that permissible?
Sunny Worrell
Sent from my iPhone
>
LikeLike
aelarsen said:
Sure. It’s hardly my best post, but if you think it would be useful, be my guest.
LikeLike
Natasha Rubin said:
As a longtime Shakespeare buff (though certainly not an expert), I have to say I was really impressed with this movie. As far as I could tell, there’s nothing in it that outright contradicts the facts of Shakespeare’s life. There are certainly things it makes up – largely the plot twist about Hamnet’s death and the poems – but those are things that plausibly *could* have happened, even if we have no particular reason to think they did. Likewise the portrayal of Shakespeare’s romantic feelings for Southampton isn’t historical fact, but is based on longstanding theories based on Shakespeare’s sonnets and what we know of their relationship (which would make great fodder for a blog post of its own, I think, btw). Shakespeare’s troubled relationships with his wife and daughters are speculation, but certainly make sense given how long he’d spent away from them. Almost everything else – the Globe burning down, Shakespeare’s retirement, Susanna being accused of adultery, Thomas Quiney having gotten another girl pregnant right before his engagement to Judith, Shakespeare’s death – are all straight out of history.
I think artistic license in historical fiction is at its best when it’s used like this, to flesh out the known facts and fill in the gaps rather than just ignoring the actual history or veering off in directions that have nothing to do with reality (*cpugh*Shakespeare in Love*cough*). I like that this may not be a 100% accurate picture of Shakespeare’s final years, but it’s firmly rooted in the actual relationships and circumstances of his life. That’s what biopics should be, IMO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
aelarsen said:
I agree. It’s refreshing to see a film that really does try to work with the known facts. Even if it tweaks or invents some details, it still tries to be plausible. We need more films like this.
But I can forgive SiL—it’s obviously not trying to be serious, and it’s a genuinely smart, funny film. I’m not sure it would have worked if it had tried to get its facts right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Natasha Rubin said:
That’s true – SiL is probably best appreciated not as a straightforward biopic, but more of an original story that happens to involve Shakespeare. There’s definitely a place for stories like that (historical fanfic, one might say, though really any piece of historical fiction is fanfic to a degree). I do wonder how many people watch movies like SiL and come away thinking they’re actual history, though.
But then, that’s why blogs like yours are so helpful!
LikeLiked by 1 person
aelarsen said:
I’ve been meaning to review SiL, but given how overwhelmed I’ve been with work since Covid hit, I haven’t had the time to do any work on this blog.
I suspect most people recognize the fiction in SiL simply from its tone. But I’m sure some people take it as broadly accurate. It paints a picture that ‘feels’ true to the period even if it’s not actually true. Kinda like the kilts in Braveheart
LikeLike
Natasha Rubin said:
One way this movie does deviate from actual history, BTW, is in the casting of Judi Dench and Ian McKellen, who are both decades older than the characters they’re playing. But I think this might be a case where you’re just supposed to suspend disbelief and pretend Dench and McKellen are the right age, rather than the characters having been aged up to fit them. And since they’re both such brilliant actors, I’m happy to go along with that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
aelarsen said:
Yes. But I don’t expect actors to look like their characters-that’s a very high bar to set.
LikeLike
Natasha Rubin said:
It’s reasonable to expect them to be at least generally in the right age range, though. An 80-year-old and a 40-year-old are two very different things. (Not an exaggeration – Ian McKellen was 79 when the movie came out, while Henry Wriothesley was 40 in 1613.)
Like I said, I’m happy to suspend disbelief in this case, but I do think it’s worth pointing out.
LikeLike
epicurius2015 said:
It is a high bar, but at the same time, age and appearance can be used to tell us things about the way the creators want us to view the characters. Take the HBO show Rome, for instance. In real life, Caesar was about 5 years older than Cato, and surviving busts of Cato show him with a round face, a prominent nose, and fairly large ears that stuck out of his head.
In terms of the way they were portrayed, Karl Johnson, who played Cato, is 5 years older than Ciran Hinds, who played Caesar, and while Caesar is portrayed as hale and hearty, Cato is gaunt, wrinkled and white haired, and looks older than the actor’s real age of 57 (The real Cato committed suicide at 49).
This is all intentional on the show’s part. The show wants us to see Caesar as heroic and strong (and ultimately, his cause as legitimate), and Cato as weak, stuck in the past and ineffectual. So, sure, you’re never going to cast somebody who looks identical to the historical character (and if you’re doing a movie about Shakespeare and can get Judi Densch and Ian McKellan, you get Judi Densch and Ian McKellan), but, at the same time, casting choices can be used by a production to deliberately send a message about the way we’re expected to view the characters.
LikeLiked by 1 person