Anonymous

[Jedi Master Carr]

I have little interest in seeing this movie and this article makes me want to see it even less.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/opinion/hollywood-dishonors-the-bard.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

I mean come on 99% of historians believe that Shakespeare wrote his own plays. The historical community has proof. People who believe in such nonsense should go join the roswell, truther, birther freaks in the mental asylum. I think part of it is it that certain people can't stand knowing a commoner wrote such great works of art, well they should face the facts. Of course having the director of Independence Day making this movie is a laugh. His previous historical films (ie the Patriot) were completely historically incarcerate and I am sure this movie is the same.

[CMJ]

A movie doesn't have to be historically accurate to be good. I was actually intrigued by the film until I saw Emmerich was directing it.

[Jedi Master Carr]

A movie doesn't have to be historically accurate to be good. I was actually intrigued by the film until I saw Emmerich was directing it.

Most of the time it doesn't bother me, but I don't like it that they are using this movie as propaganda for their cause. Also, I had little interest in it considering Emmerich was involved, but the propaganda bit really bothers me. Also about historically inaccuracies, I suppose the worse for me was in the Patriot where they burned civilians alive in a church that was absurd and really bothered me. However, while I was working at Cowpens I noticed it helped with their attendance and I then got the chance to educate people on those misconceptions.

[Crusader]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question

Well it is not that 99% sure.

[Jedi Master Carr]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question

Well it is not that 99% sure.

Wikipedia isn't the best source, and if you find out about those who are questioning it the vast majority aren't historians or scholars but either actors, or aristocrats. It would be like a historian questing the truth about the theory of gravity. It began in the 19th century with an ancestor of Francis Bacon and other aristocrats who couldn't believe a commoner could write such beautiful plays. Of course they ignore that Chaucer, Dickens, Hume, and others weren't nobleman either so Shakespeare is more the norm than the an exception.

[Mu Satach]

I want to see it, but I'm already cringing inwardly at the number of people who are going to believe this farce is history.

>_<

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Wait, The Patriot isn't a true story?! :eek

;)

I still love that movie though.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Wait, The Patriot isn't a true story?! :eek

;)

I still love that movie though.

LOL well my biggest probably was the church burning bit. It was well acted but it had very little truth in it, although again it did help the battlefield I have worked for and we get to tell them the true story.

[Dasquian Belargic]

Leave the Bard alone, you prick-eared curs :shakefist

[Atreyu]

There's nothing wrong with a film exploring other potential possibilities and not siding with the agreed history, but I agree with Carr that the way in which the filmmakers have been promoting this is a tad annoying :\. The Patriot wasn't historically accurate, but no one pretended it was - it was just seen as a fun action film set in the Revolutionary War.

By contrast, many people involved with the production of this film have been trying to actively promote the idea that Shakespeare wasn't 'Shakespeare', as if trying to convince that the viewer will gain insight into something that wouldn't have previously known etc. It's annoying because as has been mentioned the vast majority of historians and scholars accept the reality that Mr William Shakespeare is a real, breathing, person of history - those who tried to push the hypothesis that he wasn't are really on the fringe.

(hell, I read a book on Shakespeare last year and it was pointed out there's more evidence for the man himself (including records of houses he purchased etc) than many of his contemporaries such as Ben Jonson and Christopher Marlowe, but no one bothers running around trying to argue that they didn't exist) |I

[Captain Untouchable]

Wikipedia isn't the best source, and if you find out about those who are questioning it the vast majority aren't historians or scholars but either actors, or aristocrats. It would be like a historian questing the truth about the theory of gravity.

I don't want to weigh in on the discussion/argument itself, since I'm not an expert on Shakespeare or literature, or on the personal details of the people saying whatever it is they're apparently saying. However, I'm not particularly comfortable with the quoted statement.

You seem to be implying that actors and aristocrats are incapable of being a scholar / book-smart, and that an expert in one field (history) cannot also be knowledgable about another (science).

John Strutt, William Parsons, Henry Cavendish, James Smithson - all born into money and aristocracy, and who made contributions to science. William Herschel composed 24 symphonies as well as discovering Uranus and infrared. Isaac Newton wrote more about theology than he ever did about science. Thomas Edison never went to university; he taught himself. Think about everything that Benjamin Franklin did, as a scientist, inventor, and politician. How about Leonardo da Vinci or, to throw in a more modern example, Stephen Fry?

Sometimes, people are just smart, whatever label you put on them. Being able to think critically and logically about a concept, or comparing facts and evidence is the kind of basic skill that can be applied to history, physics, medicine, linguistics, and a plethora of other things. What it requires is a healthy imagination: something that actors most definately have, too.

Maybe you're right, and it is just crackpot actors and aristocrats. Or maybe they aren't, and they're actually smarter than the simplified perspective gives them credit for. Either way, you should probably be forming your opinion based on their evidence and reasoning, and not on an initial occupation-based assumption.

( And yes, I did already know all that random scientist trivia - I had to do a presentation at university on the "other accomplishments" of noted scientists. >_< )

[Crusader]

Well the only reason why I think that this theory is not total bullshit is that the historic Shakespeare that ran the theater does not mention his plays in his last will. He only divides his worldly property in this letter that still exists. This is kind of odd.

Those theories do not deny the existence of Shakespeare as a theater owner but that he is the same Shakespeare that wrote those plays.

And BTW the Patriot is badass!

[Jedi Master Carr]

Wikipedia isn't the best source, and if you find out about those who are questioning it the vast majority aren't historians or scholars but either actors, or aristocrats. It would be like a historian questing the truth about the theory of gravity.

I don't want to weigh in on the discussion/argument itself, since I'm not an expert on Shakespeare or literature, or on the personal details of the people saying whatever it is they're apparently saying. However, I'm not particularly comfortable with the quoted statement.

You seem to be implying that actors and aristocrats are incapable of being a scholar / book-smart, and that an expert in one field (history) cannot also be knowledgable about another (science).

John Strutt, William Parsons, Henry Cavendish, James Smithson - all born into money and aristocracy, and who made contributions to science. William Herschel composed 24 symphonies as well as discovering Uranus and infrared. Isaac Newton wrote more about theology than he ever did about science. Thomas Edison never went to university; he taught himself. Think about everything that Benjamin Franklin did, as a scientist, inventor, and politician. How about Leonardo da Vinci or, to throw in a more modern example, Stephen Fry?

Sometimes, people are just smart, whatever label you put on them. Being able to think critically and logically about a concept, or comparing facts and evidence is the kind of basic skill that can be applied to history, physics, medicine, linguistics, and a plethora of other things. What it requires is a healthy imagination: something that actors most definately have, too.

Maybe you're right, and it is just crackpot actors and aristocrats. Or maybe they aren't, and they're actually smarter than the simplified perspective gives them credit for. Either way, you should probably be forming your opinion based on their evidence and reasoning, and not on an initial occupation-based assumption.

( And yes, I did already know all that random scientist trivia - I had to do a presentation at university on the "other accomplishments" of noted scientists. >_< )

Well I should have pointed out their evidence is very shoddy and most of it is theory and speculation. If the were telling the truth then why does nearly the historical community say they are wrong? You can't find one historian or scholar who legitimizes these claims? The problem is these actors and nobles don't go searching for any evidence by looking through archives like scholars do but grasp at straws by saying that Shakespeare was a commoner and couldn't have written his plays. And try to examine the life of Oxford saying it resembles the plays (of course they ignore his poetry which is god awful and doesn't resemble the beauty of Shakespeare's work). Real historians would go into the archives of England and dig and see if they can back these theories but most don't even try. The few who have have found no evidence to back up their claims.

About the will, I am no expert on that period, but I want to say that literary works didn't have the monetary value they have today. Your family couldn't collect royalties on works of fiction, music, and etc until the 19th century. For that reason he just didn't bother to put it his will.

I still call these people crackpots and many of them would probably wish we could go back to some sort of feudalism where the noble class was again in charge.

[Dasquian Belargic]

There's one line that really sums up my opinion on the de Vere issue:


Meanwhile, not a shred of documentary evidence has ever been found that connects de Vere to any of the plays or poems.

And as for this:


Mr. Emmerich has treated fact-based arguments and the authorities who make them with suspicion. As he told an MTV interviewer last month when asked about the authorship question: “I think it’s not good to tell kids lies in school.”

:rolleyes Of course, who gives a toss about facts and evidence? Oh, and de Vere is both Elizabeth's lover and her illegitimate son? Everything about this film smacks of ridiculous conspiracy theories.

[Jedi Master Carr]

The movie seems more in line with something Dan Brown would write up.

[Crusader]

^^Yeah but Dan Brown would get away with it because he would write it like a sight seeing trip in London and they would cast a triple AAA Hollywood actor that does not slightly resemble the protagonist from the book in the movie version.

[Dasquian Belargic]

COMING SOON from DAN BROWN

THE SHAKESPEARE STRATAGEM

with WILL SMITH as WILLIAM 'BIG WILL' SHAKESPEARE

and SHIA LABEOUF as SIR FRANCIS 'FRANKIE BOY' DRAKE

[Lilaena De'Ville]

^^ I would watch that :lol

[Jedi Master Carr]

COMING SOON from DAN BROWN

THE SHAKESPEARE STRATAGEM

with WILL SMITH as WILLIAM 'BIG WILL' SHAKESPEARE

and SHIA LABEOUF as SIR FRANCIS 'FRANKIE BOY' DRAKE

lol way to give him an idea.

[Dasquian Belargic]

You heard it here first, guys ;) :lol

[Mu Satach]

COMING SOON from DAN BROWN

THE SHAKESPEARE STRATAGEM

with WILL SMITH as WILLIAM 'BIG WILL' SHAKESPEARE

and SHIA LABEOUF as SIR FRANCIS 'FRANKIE BOY' DRAKE

Brilliant! :lol

@Crusader - the whole idea of "owning" one's writings or stipulating what would be done with them is kind of a modern idea. It doesn't bother me that Shakespear doesn't mention his writings in his will.

[Jedi Master Carr]

COMING SOON from DAN BROWN

THE SHAKESPEARE STRATAGEM

with WILL SMITH as WILLIAM 'BIG WILL' SHAKESPEARE

and SHIA LABEOUF as SIR FRANCIS 'FRANKIE BOY' DRAKE

Brilliant! :lol

@Crusader - the whole idea of "owning" one's writings or stipulating what would be done with them is kind of a modern idea. It doesn't bother me that Shakespear doesn't mention his writings in his will.

Did other writers like Dickens, Dumas, or Hugo even bother to mention their writings in their will? It wasn't really until the 20th century that people considered that important.

[Dasquian Belargic]

Here's the will of Charles Dickens: http://www.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~matsuoka/CD-Forster-13.html (it's about as wordy as his fiction)

He actually does refer his copyrights and manuscripts, but they aren't mentioned until quite a ways into the will.

[jjwr]

If the were telling the truth then why does nearly the historical community say they are wrong? You can't find one historian or scholar who legitimizes these claims?

Without concrete proof any historian worth his salt isn't going to hitch his wagon to something like this. They have to follow the historical record and if they go along with this they will lose credibiility. That alone doesn't make the arguments against him being the author untrue. Lets not forget this was the 16th century and while many records were kept its nowhere near the extent they are today. It wouldn't be hard for him not to be the author and it never come to light hence leaving no evidence on record.

There are interesting arguments on both side, if I'm not mistaken they have never found a single piece of his writing and very little written in his own hand. For such a prolific writer shouldn't he have left behind various notebooks, drafts, etc? The issue of the will is at question as well, considering how involved he was and what he wrote there should have been some mention, especially considering the works were published in Folio's before his death.

Course thats not to say there isn't just as much or more evidence that he was the author. Its interesting and fun to question. Without any real evidence to the contrary we'll never know if he wasn't the writer and unless a smoking gun emerges then the question will remain.

[d'Art Lefou]

The big issue I have with this whole Shakespeare not writing Shakespeare thing is the fact that it wasn't until the Victorian Era before anyone started wondering about it. The whole reason it was thought up in the first place is because Shakespeare as a person didn't fit into the romantic ideal of the Victorian mindset. Edward de Vere did, and so this whole complicated, largely meaningless code was invented to "prove" that he wrote the works.

The fact of the matter is, Shakespeare's works weren't celebrated at the time the way that they are now. A lot of people probably weren't even aware of who wrote what at the time that they were seeing these plays when they were first performed.

Ultimately, chances are that Shakespeare, Marlowe and others all collaborated on their works at various times. It wasn't about creating art or timeless masterpieces - it was about chucking a story together to sell to the masses so that you could buy some booze and pay your rent. It would be like saying that Chuck Lorre (producer of Dharma & Greg, Mike & Molly, Two and a Half Men, etc) isn't really Chuck Lorre.

...XD Sorry, this subject is one of my biggest pet peeves.

[Jedi Master Carr]

The big issue I have with this whole Shakespeare not writing Shakespeare thing is the fact that it wasn't until the Victorian Era before anyone started wondering about it. The whole reason it was thought up in the first place is because Shakespeare as a person didn't fit into the romantic ideal of the Victorian mindset. Edward de Vere did, and so this whole complicated, largely meaningless code was invented to "prove" that he wrote the works.

The fact of the matter is, Shakespeare's works weren't celebrated at the time the way that they are now. A lot of people probably weren't even aware of who wrote what at the time that they were seeing these plays when they were first performed.

Ultimately, chances are that Shakespeare, Marlowe and others all collaborated on their works at various times. It wasn't about creating art or timeless masterpieces - it was about chucking a story together to sell to the masses so that you could buy some booze and pay your rent. It would be like saying that Chuck Lorre (producer of Dharma & Greg, Mike & Molly, Two and a Half Men, etc) isn't really Chuck Lorre.

...XD Sorry, this subject is one of my biggest pet peeves.


There was a lot of collaboration back then. I know Chaucer did that kind of thing and later writer like Alexander Dumas did that with most of his books. I can believe that happened.

[Crusader]

Just to get back on the topic. So we have had a nearly 2 pages long discussion about whether or not Shakespeare is the real author. Now no one can claim that this is not a provocativ intresting topic for a movie and this is the point here.

Dan Brown's Da Vinchie Code is way more constructed than this idea and people called it entertaining. Let's see if Roland Emmerich gets away with it. In the end it could be worse... Uwe Boll could be doing this movie!

[Dasquian Belargic]

I just saw the trailer for this for the first time... It definitely looks naff, even just as a trailer.

[d'Art Lefou]

I want to know who the pretty boy with the curly blonde hair is supposed to be. XD

[Jedi Master Carr]

Good article in NY Times about this absurd theory
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/magazine/wouldnt-it-be-cool-if-shakespeare-wasnt-shakespeare.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

He made some great points especially that Devere died and Shakespeare's plays continued to be writing. Like how could have written about the Gunpowder plot when it happened 2 years after his death?

[Atreyu]

'Who Wrote Shakespeare?' by Eric Idle (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2011/11/21/111121sh_shouts_idle)

"...Beau Brummell wrote nearly all of Jane Austen, and two men and a cat wrote most of Charles Dickens, with the exception of “A Tale of Two Cities,” which Napoleon wrote while visiting St. Helena. Incidentally, Napoleon was not Napoleon but a man named Trevor Francis, who later turned up playing for Birmingham City."

Idle just goes on and on and on and on. :lol

[Jedi Master Carr]

'Who Wrote Shakespeare?' by Eric Idle (http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2011/11/21/111121sh_shouts_idle)

"...Beau Brummell wrote nearly all of Jane Austen, and two men and a cat wrote most of Charles Dickens, with the exception of “A Tale of Two Cities,” which Napoleon wrote while visiting St. Helena. Incidentally, Napoleon was not Napoleon but a man named Trevor Francis, who later turned up playing for Birmingham City."

Idle just goes on and on and on and on. :lol

LOL got to love Eric Idle.