I had heard a bit about the idea of Shakespeare not being the author of his plays a few years back. This critic, who describes himself as a former Shakespeare professor, is very critical of the movie “Anonymous” for its various and blatant historical inaccuracies.
The argument made by the critic in many ways mirrors the debate that we have had in response to “Elizabeth.” The nature of film lends itself to historical inaccuracies for the sake of dramatic effect. The question is the extent to which liberties are taken, and how justifiable. As I am not an expert on Shakespeare or Tudor England, I must accept much of the critic’s historical criticism at face value. Comparing the Oxfordian theory the fake moon landing, Obama birthers and 9/11 truthers shows clearly that the critic does not considerit to be a legitimate school of thought. He explains this by pointing out the impossibilities of the chronological record, and suggests other scholarly work to elaborate beyond what is feasible in a short movie review.
One other thing that stood out to me was the critic’s discussion of the deformity of Richard III. As an undergraduate, I read the novel, The Daughter of Time, which used a fictional framework of a bedridden detective to examine the myth and fact surrounding Richard III. The book’s theme addresses popularly accepted history and how it is influenced. It is a very good read for anyone that might be interested. The critic mentions Thomas More’s description but glosses over any dispute over facts. This seems a strange omission for someone who identifies as a professor of Shakespeare, particularly since there is such an effort to contest historical facts portrayed in the film.
I also found it odd that an academic would use made up words (“truthiness”) to make his point. It gave the critique a bit of a schizophrenic tone that hurt his argument.
The critic then veers on a tangent into political commentary, comparing the “antielitism” of Looney to politicians like Rick Perry who are skeptical about global warming. This came out of nowhere, and had no place in a movie review about Shakespeare.
I had heard a bit about the idea of Shakespeare not being the author of his plays a few years back. This critic, who describes himself as a former Shakespeare professor, is very critical of the movie “Anonymous” for its various and blatant historical inaccuracies.
The argument made by the critic in many ways mirrors the debate that we have had in response to “Elizabeth.” The nature of film lends itself to historical inaccuracies for the sake of dramatic effect. The question is the extent to which liberties are taken, and how justifiable. As I am not an expert on Shakespeare or Tudor England, I must accept much of the critic’s historical criticism at face value. Comparing the Oxfordian theory the fake moon landing, Obama birthers and 9/11 truthers shows clearly that the critic does not considerit to be a legitimate school of thought. He explains this by pointing out the impossibilities of the chronological record, and suggests other scholarly work to elaborate beyond what is feasible in a short movie review.
One other thing that stood out to me was the critic’s discussion of the deformity of Richard III. As an undergraduate, I read the novel, The Daughter of Time, which used a fictional framework of a bedridden detective to examine the myth and fact surrounding Richard III. The book’s theme addresses popularly accepted history and how it is influenced. It is a very good read for anyone that might be interested. The critic mentions Thomas More’s description but glosses over any dispute over facts. This seems a strange omission for someone who identifies as a professor of Shakespeare, particularly since there is such an effort to contest historical facts portrayed in the film.
I also found it odd that an academic would use made up words (“truthiness”) to make his point. It gave the critique a bit of a schizophrenic tone that hurt his argument.
The critic then veers on a tangent into political commentary, comparing the “antielitism” of Looney to politicians like Rick Perry who are skeptical about global warming. This came out of nowhere, and had no place in a movie review about Shakespeare.
The critic argues that “not everyone deserves a say” because some opinions lack credibility. There is a fundamental flaw in this view, and I find it personally offensive to think that anyone’s constitutional rights should be abridged because they do not agree with the majority of scholars. While this is patently absurd to most people, there are a few who believe this. By allowing these ideas to be expressed publicly and openly, it allows people to see the flaws in the argument. Shakespeare historians should be embracing the great opportunity this movie represents. It will likely increase interest in Shakespeare scholarship, and allow them to educate people who would otherwise have been totally uninterested in the life of Shakespeare.
On top of reminding me that I missed the episode where the Fonz jumped the shark tank, I was also reminded of past discussions concerning a variety of conspiracies. Those conversations can be maddening. I understand the author’s concerns, because ‘theories’ take on a life of their own. I understand the authors concerns because scholars spend years researching material and employing methodologies they learned over the course of many years of structured university study in order to interpret any particular historical event. They consider the findings of other scholars to support their arguments. Then…well… right or wrong…where are the footnotes?…it must be maddening.
I found Marche’s comparison of “Anonymous” to “The Davinci Code” interesting. It seems that this genre of film uses unproven historical theory to generate public intrigue in conspiracy theories that are presented as factual. To the dismay of Marche and other historians, there is a fear that many impressionable youth and adults not familiar with the topic may be gullible enough to treat such historical dramas as fact, and wrongfully question the established historiography on the subject. Marche does concede that there is nothing wrong with enjoying such films and conspiracy theories, but he states that they have no place bringing the the established historicial truth into question.
I had heard a bit about the idea of Shakespeare not being the author of his plays a few years back. This critic, who describes himself as a former Shakespeare professor, is very critical of the movie “Anonymous” for its various and blatant historical inaccuracies.
The argument made by the critic in many ways mirrors the debate that we have had in response to “Elizabeth.” The nature of film lends itself to historical inaccuracies for the sake of dramatic effect. The question is the extent to which liberties are taken, and how justifiable. As I am not an expert on Shakespeare or Tudor England, I must accept much of the critic’s historical criticism at face value. Comparing the Oxfordian theory the fake moon landing, Obama birthers and 9/11 truthers shows clearly that the critic does not considerit to be a legitimate school of thought. He explains this by pointing out the impossibilities of the chronological record, and suggests other scholarly work to elaborate beyond what is feasible in a short movie review.
One other thing that stood out to me was the critic’s discussion of the deformity of Richard III. As an undergraduate, I read the novel, The Daughter of Time, which used a fictional framework of a bedridden detective to examine the myth and fact surrounding Richard III. The book’s theme addresses popularly accepted history and how it is influenced. It is a very good read for anyone that might be interested. The critic mentions Thomas More’s description but glosses over any dispute over facts. This seems a strange omission for someone who identifies as a professor of Shakespeare, particularly since there is such an effort to contest historical facts portrayed in the film.
I also found it odd that an academic would use made up words (“truthiness”) to make his point. It gave the critique a bit of a schizophrenic tone that hurt his argument.
The critic then veers on a tangent into political commentary, comparing the “antielitism” of Looney to politicians like Rick Perry who are skeptical about global warming. This came out of nowhere, and had no place in a movie review about Shakespeare.
The critic argues t
I had heard a bit about the idea of Shakespeare not being the author of his plays a few years back. This critic, who describes himself as a former Shakespeare professor, is very critical of the movie “Anonymous” for its various and blatant historical inaccuracies.
The argument made by the critic in many ways mirrors the debate that we have had in response to “Elizabeth.” The nature of film lends itself to historical inaccuracies for the sake of dramatic effect. The question is the extent to which liberties are taken, and how justifiable. As I am not an expert on Shakespeare or Tudor England, I must accept much of the critic’s historical criticism at face value. Comparing the Oxfordian theory the fake moon landing, Obama birthers and 9/11 truthers shows clearly that the critic does not considerit to be a legitimate school of thought. He explains this by pointing out the impossibilities of the chronological record, and suggests other scholarly work to elaborate beyond what is feasible in a short movie review.
One other thing that stood out to me was the critic’s discussion of the deformity of Richard III. As an undergraduate, I read the novel, The Daughter of Time, which used a fictional framework of a bedridden detective to examine the myth and fact surrounding Richard III. The book’s theme addresses popularly accepted history and how it is influenced. It is a very good read for anyone that might be interested. The critic mentions Thomas More’s description but glosses over any dispute over facts. This seems a strange omission for someone who identifies as a professor of Shakespeare, particularly since there is such an effort to contest historical facts portrayed in the film.
I also found it odd that an academic would use made up words (“truthiness”) to make his point. It gave the critique a bit of a schizophrenic tone that hurt his argument.
The critic then veers on a tangent into political commentary, comparing the “antielitism” of Looney to politicians like Rick Perry who are skeptical about global warming. This came out of nowhere, and had no place in a movie review about Shakespeare.
The critic argues that “not everyone deserves a say” because some opinions lack credibility. There is a fundamental flaw in this view, and I find it personally offensive to think that anyone’s constitutional rights should be abridged because they do not agree with the majority of scholars. While this is patently absurd to most people, there are a few who believe this. By allowing these ideas to be expressed publicly and openly, it allows people to see the flaws in the argument. Shakespeare historians should be embracing the great opportunity this movie represents. It will likely increase interest in Shakespeare scholarship, and allow them to educate people who would otherwise have been totally uninterested in the life of Shakespeare.
On top of reminding me that I missed the episode where the Fonz jumped the shark tank, I was also reminded of past discussions concerning a variety of conspiracies. Those conversations can be maddening. I understand the author’s concerns, because ‘theories’ take on a life of their own. I understand the authors concerns because scholars spend years researching material and employing methodologies they learned over the course of many years of structured university study in order to interpret any particular historical event. They consider the findings of other scholars to support their arguments. Then…well… right or wrong…where are the footnotes?…it must be maddening.
I found Marche’s comparison of “Anonymous” to “The Davinci Code” interesting. It seems that this genre of film uses unproven historical theory to generate public intrigue in conspiracy theories that are presented as factual. To the dismay of Marche and other historians, there is a fear that many impressionable youth and adults not familiar with the topic may be gullible enough to treat such historical dramas as fact, and wrongfully question the established historiography on the subject. Marche does concede that there is nothing wrong with enjoying such films and conspiracy theories, but he states that they have no place bringing the the established historicial truth into question.