• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Roland Emmerich exposes Shakespeare as a fraud...

Well Derek Jacobi who is involved in this production is a public supporter of the Oxfordian fantasy; and Roland has in the past has said that he takes some of the crap in his movies seriously. For example Roland when 10,000 B.C. was released said he doubted the Egyptians erected the pyramids.

So I rather think that Roland, like Stone with JFK wants us to take the idea that Oxford wrote Shakespeare's plays seriously.

Regarding the whole Oxfordian fantasy there is the recent book Contested Will by
James Shapiro which, IMO effectively discredits the whole Bacon, Oxford etc., fantasies.
 
I don't have a problem with historical characters being used in fantastical fiction per se but there is a line when a movie switches from "playful historical fiction" to "OMG craptacular pseudohistorical nonsense". Which way this movie goes is yet to be seen.

I think the "who cares" crowd is being a little too forgiving. If a major director made a movie suggesting the holocaust was fiction, would it bother you? (I know it is an absurd example but that's why it's called "reductio ad absurdum".) Everyone has their breaking point right?
 
KingMerv00 said:
I don't have a problem with historical characters being used in fantastical fiction per se but there is a line when a movie switches from "playful historical fiction" to "OMG craptacular pseudohistorical nonsense". Which way this movie goes is yet to be seen.

I think the "who cares" crowd is being a little too forgiving. If a major director made a movie suggesting the holocaust was fiction, would it bother you? (I know it is an absurd example but that's why it's called "reductio ad absurdum".) Everyone has their breaking point right?
Click to expand...

I don't understand why the made up plot of a work of fiction would bother anyone from an historical standpoint. I can understand being offended by the subject matter in general as per your holocaust example. In my opinion, as long as no one claims it is fact, they could say whatever they want about the holocaust or any other historical event or person.

I have yet to see anyone complain about Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter.
 
dudalb said:
You will be amazed how many people get their ideas of History from crap like this film.
And if he does as he usually does, Emmerich will play the Dan Brown Game of trying to have it both ways, claiming it's "only fiction" but then claiming it is based on accurate research.
Click to expand...

People who will believe whatever they like to believe will -- shock! -- believe whatever they like. If some people choose to take the word of a fantasy/sci-fi filmmmaker over that of demonstrable historical fact, that is their prerogative.

I suspect that this movie will inspire at least a few people to research the topic for themselves, and discover -- surprise! -- that Emmerich had the wrong of it after all.
 
CyberCecil said:
I don't understand why the made up plot of a work of fiction would bother anyone from an historical standpoint. I can understand being offended by the subject matter in general as per your holocaust example. In my opinion, as long as no one claims it is fact, they could say whatever they want about the holocaust or any other historical event or person.

I have yet to see anyone complain about Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter.
Click to expand...

Bolding mine. Therein lies the problem. It's when a creator of a work implies or at least lets others infer that his piece of fiction may just be true especially when it applies to areas that are controversial. (e.g. Dan Brown)

I have no problem with fictionalized history, I read the Flashman books and think they are great. I even like scientific abominations like Independence Day and Armageddon. However, books and films are very powerful and to promote pseudo-history as the real thing is a fraud.

Here's my litmus test. When asked about a fictionalized historical event in a film, I think an appropriate response from the filmmaker should be, "Well, it's just a movie." or "We had to compress events." or "We thought this would be more exciting/interesting." or "We needed it for the flow of the film." Inappropriate responses are "Well, it might have happened." or "There are some who think this is what really happened." or "We're just trying to ask questions."
 
Roxane said:
I'm not judging you, man. I'd just like to see this sentiment expressed under a blanket with a few tear/mascara stains on your cheeks.

:p
Click to expand...

Well I did get a little emotional when the tour guide let me get on stage and do a little Henry V when I toured the Globe Theater this summer.
 
Vortigern99 said:
People who will believe whatever they like to believe will -- shock! -- believe whatever they like. If some people choose to take the word of a fantasy/sci-fi filmmmaker over that of demonstrable historical fact, that is their prerogative.

I suspect that this movie will inspire at least a few people to research the topic for themselves, and discover -- surprise! -- that Emmerich had the wrong of it after all.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but it will also probably inspire some people to do some very bad research and convince themselves that the movie is true.

Off topic: it just occurred to me that Shakespeare in Love takes place in 1593 (when Marlowe died), a year when all the London theaters were closed.
 
Craig4 said:
I really don't get that. I don't see the same literary voice in Faustus that there is in say, Hamlet.
Click to expand...

Plus there's that whole being dead thing. Of all the candidates for "Shakespeare," Marlowe is the only one who wrote in some of the same genres as Shakespeare (dramatic works and long narrative poems on classical/erotic subjects) and whose work in those genres survives. Of the major candidates, he's also probably the best poet, based on surviving work. Of course, there are stylistic differences between the two. To some extent, those differences can be quantified by looking at spelling, vocabulary, use of enjambment versus end stop, etc. Also, Marlowe died in 1593. Trying to get around that leads to very nearly insuperable problems. One that is often overlooked: how do you explain the works that Shakespeare wrote before Marlowe died?
 
The whole conspiracy is just elitism. Shakespeare was an uneducated glove-maker who became the greatest writer in the English language. Marlowe was a Cambridge educated scholar (and spy!) who was only slightly less great. So if Shakespeare never existed or was merely a front for Marlowe, then the literati gets to imagine that one of their own is the greatest playwright of all time, and not Bill Shake-a-spear.

As for how you explain Marlowe and Shakespeare writing contemporaneously, well, Marlowe was obviously a genius! He foresaw that his spycraft activities for the Crown would eventually get him in trouble with the Star Chamber. So he began planning for his faked death years in advance. But he could not rob the world of his literary genius! And so Shakespeare agreed to be his front-man. Marlowe faked his own murder, went into hiding somewhere, wrote brilliant plays like Hamlet and sent them to Shakespeare who produced them as his own.

Note I don't believe a word of it. But that's the general conspiracy theory.
 
marksman said:
The whole conspiracy is just elitism. Shakespeare was an uneducated glove-maker who became the greatest writer in the English language. Marlowe was a Cambridge educated scholar (and spy!) who was only slightly less great. So if Shakespeare never existed or was merely a front for Marlowe, then the literati gets to imagine that one of their own is the greatest playwright of all time, and not Bill Shake-a-spear.

As for how you explain Marlowe and Shakespeare writing contemporaneously, well, Marlowe was obviously a genius! He foresaw that his spycraft activities for the Crown would eventually get him in trouble with the Star Chamber. So he began planning for his faked death years in advance. But he could not rob the world of his literary genius! And so Shakespeare agreed to be his front-man. Marlowe faked his own murder, went into hiding somewhere, wrote brilliant plays like Hamlet and sent them to Shakespeare who produced them as his own.

Note I don't believe a word of it. But that's the general conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

Well, the Marlowe-elitism is slightly different from the Oxford-elitism. Marlowe did have a university education, of course, but he was the son of a shoemaker.

You have to admire (or perhaps I mean "boggle at") the anti-Shakespeareans' passion and tenacity. Inspired partly by this thread, I wrote a long post on the authorship question yesterday. First post on a brand-spanking-new blog (see sig.). In no time an Oxfordian showed up and started leaving long comments, which all pretty much ignore the original post, my comments, my collaborator's comments and our follow-up post. It's impressive in a way.
 
Lucian said:
You have to admire (or perhaps I mean "boggle at") the anti-Shakespeareans' passion and tenacity. Inspired partly by this thread, I wrote a long post on the authorship question yesterday. First post on a brand-spanking-new blog (see sig.). In no time an Oxfordian showed up and started leaving long comments, which all pretty much ignore the original post, my comments, my collaborator's comments and our follow-up post. It's impressive in a way.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I enjoyed that very much indeed!
 
Lucian said:
Well, the Marlowe-elitism is slightly different from the Oxford-elitism. Marlowe did have a university education, of course, but he was the son of a shoemaker.
Click to expand...
True, which is why the Francis Bacon (Cambridge-educated, son of a manor-holding M.P.) theory is held by the truest snobs. And I'm pretty sure most of the Marlowe adherents would be perfectly happy shifting over to the Francis Bacon theory if it held any water at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom