24 1 min 10 yrs

Great news – the movie concerning the Shakespearean authorship and making the case for Lord Oxford is out this week and I’m off to see it on Saturday night, having seen Elvis on Friday night. What a weekend beckons!

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

24 thoughts on “ANONYMOUS!

  1. The Texas Rangers baseball team has a shortstop named Elvis.

    I used not to think that it was a real name.

  2. It looks good.

    London and the costumes seem to look authentic, which can’t be said for many historical flicks.

  3. The film has been panned as total trash. Among other historical howlers, it portrays Elizabeth I as the mother of several children.

    Oh, and it claims that some other geek wrote the plays, without a shred of evidence.
    But what can you expect from a German director “doing” Tudor history?

  4. Not something I’d go to see. Sounds rubbish. I recommend ‘made in Dagenham’ and excellent recently made British movie based on a true story. Excellent stuff..

    Faith healer is on in the new lyric which I would also recommend. A beautiful new theatre for excellent surroundings for a decent night out.

  5. I think that those who shut their minds to the excellent arguments for De Vere should reflect on these words of his;

    “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

    Oh, and uber lefty Vanessa Redgrave is in it.

  6. I think that those who shut their minds to the excellent arguments for De Vere should reflect on these words of his;

    Read the Tempest….

  7. What are you trying to say by picking out one quote.

    Do you know what its about and the role of the magician?

    Read it in its entirity

  8. Kateyo

    Have read most of the plays and the sonnets.
    What am I trying to say?
    The works are sublime and the credit goes to De Vere, Lord Oxford, not the pudding faced Loan Shark from Stratford.

  9. Peter –

    But what can you expect from a German director “doing” Tudor history?

    Well, yes, maybe there are howlers, but rather a German than a Hollywood which, if there is justice, ought to be carpet-bombed if one more historical atrocity is vomited out of there.

    In fact the Germans have a great love and passion for Shakespeare, but then we are northerners and Saxons. From Goethe to the present day, some of the cheeky blighters have even regarded him as something of a German, but you can’t blame them clamouring after human greatness really.

    I’m just glad Tom Cruise isn’t in the lead role.

  10. What am I trying to say?
    The works are sublime and the credit goes to De Vere, Lord Oxford, not the pudding faced Loan Shark from Stratford.

    I’m not going to argue this. You don’t seem to have based your view on much evidence. Perhaps something you read somewhere, either way I wouldn’t even entertain it, so we can agree to differ…:)

  11. You don’t seem to have based your view on much evidence.

    That’s because there is none. De Vere died several years before some of the plays were even performed. And some of his “writing” survives and does not remotely resemble the quality of Shakespeare.

    And the First Folio was clearly dedicated to Shakespeare, by Ben Johnson and others.

    The De Vere “theory” is not a theory at all, it is a scam.

  12. The De Vere “theory” is not a theory at all, it is a scam.

    LOL I didn’t like to offend. The tempest the final play is the closest S gets to bringing himself to his audience… theres a theory that the magician is him,

    Part of shakespeares greatness but overlooked is that he was so great he knew when to stop. That is surely greatness. One must remember he wrote not for greatness but for a living and he’d become quite comfortable by the time the tempest was written. He knew when to stop. Not many know when to do that.

    The de vere controversy is for fools.

  13. 1. There is an enormous body of work documenting the case for De Vere rather than the Loan Shark.
    2. I’ve read most of it.
    3. The First Folio was dedicated to the myth of the Stratford man. Please square Johnson’s “Little Latin and less Greek” with the author of the works.
    4. Sonnets dedicated to “ever-living poet” in 1609. The terms meant DEAD poet in Elizabethan times. Pudding face was still alive and died in 1616, De Vere died 1604. Work it out.

  14. The De Vere scam was initiated by an American with a clear political agenda in the 1920s.

    Among the objections to it:

    “More specifically, Professor Jonathan Bate, in The Genius of Shakespeare (1997) stated that Oxfordians cannot “provide any explanation for …technical changes attendant on the King’s Men’s move to the Blackfriars theatre four years after their candidate’s death…. Unlike the Globe, the Blackfriars was an indoor playhouse” and so required plays with frequent breaks in order to replace the candles it used for lighting. “The plays written after Shakespeare’s company began using the Blackfriars in 1608, Cymbeline and The Winter’s Tale for instance, have what most … of the earlier plays do not have: a carefully planned five-act structure”. If new Shakespearean plays were being written especially for presentation at the Blackfriars’ theatre after 1608, they could not have been written by Edward de Vere.[105]

    Stratfordians also stress that any supposedly special knowledge of the aristocracy appearing in the plays can be more easily explained by Shakespeare of Stratford’s life-time of performances before nobility and royalty,[106][107] and possibly, as Gibson theorizes, “by visits to his patron’s house, as Marlowe visited Walsingham.”[108]

    In addition, Stratfordian scholars point to a poem written circa 1620 by a student at Oxford, William Basse, that mentioned the author Shakespeare died in 1616, which is the year Shakespeare of Stratford deceased and not Edward de Vere.[109] Mainstream critics further claim that if William Shakespeare of Stratford did not write the plays and poems, the number of people needed to suppress this information would have made their attempts highly unlikely to succeed.[110] And John Michell, in Who Wrote Shakespeare, noted that “[a]gainst the Oxford theory are several references to Shakespeare, later than 1604, which imply that the author was then still alive”.[111] Also, a method of computerized textual comparison developed by the Claremont Shakespeare Clinic compared the styles of Oxford with Shakespeare and found the odds of Oxford having written Shakespeare as “lower than the odds of getting hit by lightning”.[112] Some Stratfordian academics also argue the Oxford theory is based on simple snobbishness: that anti-Stratfordians reject the idea that the son of a mere tradesman could write the plays and poems of Shakespeare.[113]

    An equally simple argument is made by Columbia University professor James S. Shapiro, author of the book Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare?: namely, the tautology in any theory that “there must have been a conspiracy to suppress the truth of de Vere’s authorship” just because “the very absence of surviving evidence proves the case.” He cites, by contrast, “testimony of contemporary writers, court records and much else” supporting Shakespeare’s authorship.[114]”

    Link here

  15. DV says he is widely read on both S works and the de vere controversy. Yet he completely misses my point on the tempest and backs up his theory with a quote…

    he then quotes 5 points plucked from whereever… so it must be true LOL

    The whole controversy is pure rubbish, I’m not entering into it. It’s daft..

  16. 1. Shapiro happily ignores the complete lack of evidence that Pudding Face wrote the works. Talk about tautology
    2. Perhaps Kateyo could read the dedication the the 1609 Sonnets and then address my point http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/dedication
    3. Perhaps all those learned Stratfordians can explain why, on his death, the man they claim to be the author of the works, that same death was met with…silence! Not a cheep. How odd. Contrast that with the outpourings of grief that accompanied the death of lesser talents at that time?

  17. 2. Perhaps Kateyo could read the dedication the the 1609 Sonnets and then address my point http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/dedication

    Which point? You made 5.

    3. Perhaps all those learned Stratfordians can explain why, on his death, the man they claim to be the author of the works, that same death was met with…silence! Not a cheep. How odd. Contrast that with the outpourings of grief that accompanied the death of lesser talents at that time?

    Thats your evidence? You know its rather odd that you would base this on ‘sentimentality’. Does this mean that Diana was the greatest ever and someone of lesser talent whose death was not met by an outpouring of grief is a would be fraud? That is the basis of your logic. A sentimental argument from someone so opposed to sentimentality does not a fraud of shakespeare make:)

    Read the tempest DV or rent it out and watch it….

  18. the complete lack of evidence that Pudding Face wrote the works

    Resorting to schoolboy name-calling does not indicate much confidence in your argument.

  19. The term pudding face is not mine but rather how the Stratford man was described by a comtemporary. I prefer the term Loan Shark, which he was.

  20. JM a piece of fiction rather? A lot of people out there think churchill is the dog from the advert and not the one from history.

Comments are closed.