![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avevale_intelligencerI'm currently being mildly amused by the vitriol being squirted all over the web about a film called Anonymous.
The film is based on the premise that Shakespeare's plays were written by someone other than Shakespeare. That, as far as I can see, is the source of the problem. Most works of fiction start from a point of divergence with reality, and this seems to me no different. I've seen films based on the premise that Earth was invaded by the Martians, that runic symbols can summon gigantic bat demons, and that John Wayne won the Second World War (okay, that's a cliché). To me this seems trivial by comparison, of no interest to Shakespeare or anyone who is seriously interested in Shakespeare. Those eccentrics who like to subscribe to alternative theories of authorship may take this film as confirmation if they wish, though that's about on a par with mistaking Da Vinci's Last Supper for a photograph of the actual event; certainly if the film didn't exist they would still believe what they believe.
And yet to look at the opinions I have seen expressed here and on Facebook you would think that director Roland Emmerich (who was responsible, among other things, for Stargate and therefore its spins-off) had spent the entire film passionately advocating intimacy with small farmyard animals, or the culling of the elderly. I cannot fathom the sheer depth of hatred this film seems to have inspired. I've read one actual review of it, which describes it as a stinker, but the text is so shot through with stuttering, trembling outrage at the sacrilegious taking of the Bard's name in vain that I don't feel I can trust it to be unbiased on the virtues of the film as a film. If I get the chance, I hope to see it for myself and make up my own mind. I like stories that muck about with history.
Something that's very "in" these days is an activity I've seen referred to as "giving the sacred cows a good kicking." Reverence is so last millennium dahling. I suppose it depends on the cow. Michael Moorcock, in his Behold The Man, presented a fiction in which Christ was not Christ. It would be amusing if some of the people who thought that was just fine and dandy are the same ones who are finding too hard to stomach the idea of a fiction in which Shakespeare is not Shakespeare.
The film is based on the premise that Shakespeare's plays were written by someone other than Shakespeare. That, as far as I can see, is the source of the problem. Most works of fiction start from a point of divergence with reality, and this seems to me no different. I've seen films based on the premise that Earth was invaded by the Martians, that runic symbols can summon gigantic bat demons, and that John Wayne won the Second World War (okay, that's a cliché). To me this seems trivial by comparison, of no interest to Shakespeare or anyone who is seriously interested in Shakespeare. Those eccentrics who like to subscribe to alternative theories of authorship may take this film as confirmation if they wish, though that's about on a par with mistaking Da Vinci's Last Supper for a photograph of the actual event; certainly if the film didn't exist they would still believe what they believe.
And yet to look at the opinions I have seen expressed here and on Facebook you would think that director Roland Emmerich (who was responsible, among other things, for Stargate and therefore its spins-off) had spent the entire film passionately advocating intimacy with small farmyard animals, or the culling of the elderly. I cannot fathom the sheer depth of hatred this film seems to have inspired. I've read one actual review of it, which describes it as a stinker, but the text is so shot through with stuttering, trembling outrage at the sacrilegious taking of the Bard's name in vain that I don't feel I can trust it to be unbiased on the virtues of the film as a film. If I get the chance, I hope to see it for myself and make up my own mind. I like stories that muck about with history.
Something that's very "in" these days is an activity I've seen referred to as "giving the sacred cows a good kicking." Reverence is so last millennium dahling. I suppose it depends on the cow. Michael Moorcock, in his Behold The Man, presented a fiction in which Christ was not Christ. It would be amusing if some of the people who thought that was just fine and dandy are the same ones who are finding too hard to stomach the idea of a fiction in which Shakespeare is not Shakespeare.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-10-30 10:18 am (UTC)Besides, I love a good rant, particularly when careful about facts - which Emmerich has never been. He was involved with The Patriot which also mangled history to the effect that the revolutionary heroes in South Carolina didn't really keep slaves, honest, and they really loved their masters. The fact is that the whole Shakespeare couldn't have written Shakespeare is pure snobbery. Likewise the idea that Elizabeth the First had illegitimate children.
Ina assures me that the much-praised (by Americans) sets are unhistorical (at least, to judge by the trailer) and a lot of the critics have complained about a dire script, and in inability to tell one character from another.
As for Stargate - it was a bad movie. SG-1 ironed out a lot of the problems and had better scripts with characters who weren't 100% cipher.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-30 10:42 am (UTC)1) The film has been made by 'those eccentrics who like to subscribe to alternative theories of authorship', and is intended as polemic. Here is Emmerich making that argument; here is Mark Rylance. The scriptwriter makes the same arguments in the comments to this blog entry.
It is therefore nothing whatsoever like any of the comparisons you suggest, unless there has been a film about a Martian invasion made by people who really believe the earth has been invaded by Martians.
2) The Oxfordian argument is largely based on the idea that an ordinary middle class bloke couldn't possible write great literature, which is offensive and has repercussions outside the world of the art. Feeling angry about that has nothing whatsoever to so with "stuttering, trembling outrage at the sacrilegious taking of the Bard's name in vain".
3) You will find that many of the people who are angry about Anonymous adore, for example, Shakespeare In Love, which also takes a lot of liberties with history (example).
no subject
Date: 2011-10-30 09:39 pm (UTC)I'd be every bit as furious at a film suggesting that the works of (say) Emily Dickinson must have actually ghost-written by her historically unknown twin brother because a woman couldn't possibly write so well and insightfully. And I don't even like Emily Dickinson that much.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-30 11:25 am (UTC)It was, as any fule kno, another man of the same name.
I'll probably watch it myself, eventually, likely with much nitpicking and much glee and enjoyment. AU has rarely stopped me...
no subject
Date: 2011-10-30 02:23 pm (UTC)This film, if it's really that bad, will pass and slide into oblivion with Reefer Madness and all the other mistaken polemics, if polemic is what it really is. (People in film and television have been known to make misleading statements if it boosts the exposure.) If it changes a few people's minds, I'm sure there will be books and documentaries and newspaper articles by the ton intended to change them back, which will only serve to convince still fewer people that there must be something in it or they wouldn't be trying to cover it up, ha ha. If it gives a few benighted souls a couple of hours of harmless enjoyment, I'm sure they'll suffer for it in their next lives or whenever.
Snobbery is a very nasty thing indeed and I do not condone it. Either way up. But anyone who is this easily convinced that Shakespeare's plays could only have been written by a lord...is a snob anyway, and probably ever shall be.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-30 02:30 pm (UTC)The conspiracy theories about Kennedy's death and about how "the moon missions were faked" have both been boosted by films, and are still being so boosted. And Shakespeare isn't around to deck Emmerich, as Buzz Aldrin did to Bart Sibrel.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-30 11:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-31 07:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-31 07:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-30 03:27 pm (UTC)Hadn't planned to see it based on those. Now, however, I don't think I'll see it even at home, when it becomes available. Thanks.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-30 08:39 pm (UTC)Honestly, I really don't understand such pointless vitriol. Is nobody allowed to have any imagination any more?
no subject
Date: 2011-10-30 11:14 pm (UTC)They can base the film on the premise Shakespeare's plays were really written by E.T. if they want. It would make about as much sense.
And really the idea that a commoner wouldn't be able to write so well is kind of rude, work of fiction or not.
The fiction I remember in which Christ was not Christ was, um, I think it was called "The Last Temptation of Jesus." And my reaction was "Meh. That's two hours of my life I won't be getting back. Was there a plot in there?" So if this is somehow similar, I think I will skip it.