Jump to content


Edward de Vere - The Movie"Anonymous"


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#16 dirac

dirac

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,808 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 02:09 PM

Thanks to all for their links to these reviews, everyone, but I think we have enough to get the gist. :clapping:

"Irrationality" and "obsession" seems a mite harsh, although it certainly applied/applies in some cases. I don't think it applies to others, however, and blanket accusations of nutjobbery aren't very nice. Anyone who's dipped into academic Shakespearean commentary knows that the good professors aren't exactly immune to the speculative bug.

#17 Mel Johnson

Mel Johnson

    Diamonds Circle

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,311 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 02:18 PM

I rather enjoyed the critic who opined that the champions of the other contenders, whether Oxford, Bacon, Jonson, Marlowe, Raleigh, Beaumont and Fletcher, Beaumont without Fletcher, Fletcher without Beaumont, or even Elizabeth I herself, had done such a thorough job of destroying everyone else's arguments that the only author left on the field of Shakespeare authorship was, in fact, Shakespeare himself.

#18 dirac

dirac

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,808 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 02:47 PM

And Fulke Greville.

#19 bart

bart

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,320 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 04:41 PM

And Fulke Greville.

Thanks for that fascinating story, dirac. Now that would make an intriguing film.

Returning to the topic of movies: Whatever we think about the historical debate, movie-making is an exercise of the imagination most of all. It really doesn't matter who is right or wrong. Why, for instance, couldn't one make make a movie about the who-wrote-Shakespeare controversy itself? It's clear that there are people who feel passionately about this issue. Passionate enough to commit crimes? To kill their rivals in order to obtain or suppress evidence?

A great deal of Western cultural identity is tied up with the answer to such questions. I remember how far those medieval monks The Name of the Rose were willing to go to suppress certain manuscripts? Or all the turbulence created by all the factions in the Da Vinci Code?

#20 dirac

dirac

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,808 posts

Posted 09 May 2010 - 05:23 PM

Why, for instance, couldn't one make make a movie about the who-wrote-Shakespeare controversy itself?


Because it would be a dead bore, that's why. :clapping: Even Roland Emmerich couldn't do much with that.

#21 dirac

dirac

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,808 posts

Posted 23 June 2011 - 04:04 PM

The latest:

German film director Roland Emmerich has admitted courting controversy with his film that questions the authorship of Shakespeare's plays.

Anonymous portrays the Bard as an inarticulate buffoon, making nobleman Edward de Vere the true author. Speaking at a debate, Emmerich said: "I know it is controversial, and I was going for the controversy."



#22 4mrdncr

4mrdncr

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 670 posts

Posted 24 June 2011 - 10:11 PM

I have a fiction book at home (trade pbk edition), only skimmed so far, that is about the discovery of a supposed Shakespearean play, and of course the machinations of all involved to find it, keep it, and then maybe release it and reap the royalties forever after. Since I bought the novel at the same time as another book, I don't remember if the title was "Codex" or "Book of Air & Shadows". Whichever, whatever, they had me and my hard earned cash at "Shakespeare".
PS. I have a degree in Med/Renn history but am certainly NOT a scholar/expert. However, I've always hoped Shakespeare wrote the plays because I like to root for "the little people" who never rule or get inordinantly rich, but still aspire to, and often achieve, greatness however anonymously.

#23 leonid17

leonid17

    Platinum Circle

  • Foreign Correspondent
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,413 posts

Posted 25 June 2011 - 12:28 AM

[There are strong arguments against Oxford, but surely the "character issue" isn't one of them. Many great writers have been men of unsavory reputation. And Tudor courts were malicious places

All true, of course. But the layers of empathy and sensitivity in Shakespeare are so extensive and so deep. There's also the matter of Shakespeare's knowledge of and caring about a wide range of social classes, as Quiggin says. "Human flaws" are compatible with these qualities and no doubt enrich them. But only to a point, I think.



Hard to say where the point is, though. It was a very different era. The questions about knowledge of classes and the nature of personality and biography have all been raised by the Oxfordians, so you're playing on their field....



The only people I have ever witnessed who have a particular claim to insight into "...classes and the nature of personality...” of the persons and period in question, are the living descendants of notable families who have an encyclopaedic knowledge going back beyond the 16th century. Which in general, they keep to themselves.

#24 dirac

dirac

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,808 posts

Posted 25 June 2011 - 11:33 AM

The only people I have ever witnessed who have a particular claim to insight into "...classes and the nature of personality...” of the persons and period in question, are the living descendants of notable families who have an encyclopaedic knowledge going back beyond the 16th century. Which in general, they keep to themselves.


"I do not know why there is all this fuss about education. None of the Paget family can read or write and they do very well."

I have a fiction book at home (trade pbk edition), only skimmed so far, that is about the discovery of a supposed Shakespearean play, and of course the machinations of all involved to find it, keep it, and then maybe release it and reap the royalties forever after. Since I bought the novel at the same time as another book, I don't remember if the title was "Codex" or "Book of Air & Shadows".


Looks like it was "The Book of Air and Shadows."

#25 dirac

dirac

    Diamonds Circle

  • Board Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,808 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 10:31 PM

"Anonymous" will be out this month.

And so ‘Anonymous’ posits the idea that Oxford was not only the author known as William Shakespeare but the illegitimate son of Elizabeth. Moreover, the pair had an incestuous relationship that produced a son, the Earl of Southampton (Xavier Samuel). ‘When Shakespeare wrote “Henry V”, he made things up and we’re making things up too,’ says Emmerich. Orloff was, at first, taken aback by his director’s suggestion, though admits it makes for great drama. ‘I have done a lot of non-fiction-based movies and there is a point where you have to go with the emotional truth, not the literal truth, because the drama is the primary concern.’

Is Emmerich expecting any adverse reaction from the British media? ‘Absolutely,’ he says. ‘I’m looking forward to it. It’s quite interesting how emotional people get when it comes to this subject. What we’re doing in this movie is very controversial.’




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):