Don't rent it on Amazon, Google Play, Apple TV, and YouTube.
First of all, the answer to the question presented by the poster is a resounding no! Second, while the idea of a conspiracy surrounding "the actual authorship" of Shakespeare's works could make for a potentially interesting story, this is not one of them! Third, the only reason this question exists in the public consciousness is because of overly privileged, uber-wealthy, and arrogant idiots who have nothing better to do but proclaim that no one could churn out such masterpieces unless they are of proper breeding, highly educated, and are linked to some kind of misguided prestigious legacy. None of which describe Shakespeare, and all of which insults his memory. To quote Anton Ego from the best PIXAR film ever, Ratatouille, "Not everyone can become a great artist. However, a great artist can come from anywhere."
Anonymous comes from Hollywood's biggest mixed bag of opinions, Roland Emmerich.
The son of a wealthy gardening tool company owner, Roland spent most of his youth traveling the world living off his dad's money. After making his way through film school, he showed up in Hollywood making fantastic summer blockbusters that, while memorable and entertaining in some ways, often fail to provide much in the way of enrichment or elevation. While he is, at the very least, a much more interesting blockbuster director than someone like Michael Bay, if for no other reason than he at least knows how to tell a story, he has shown himself to be an arrogant jerk at times. Case in point: today's film Anonymous.
In my previous Shakespeare film review for Chimes at Midnight, I mentioned a group called the Anti-Stradfordians. For some reason or other, these are people who do not believe that William Shakespeare of Stratford actually wrote the plays attributed to him. Rather, they believe that Shakespeare was a front-man for the "actual" author, who was more likely a wealthy nobleman and, according to some of these idiots, the man who could have stopped the creation of America.
Now, while his film Anonymous is technically the subject for today's review, I'm not going to be spending much time on it. Mostly because the film has already been properly reviewed and ridiculed in an episode of the YouTube show Brows Held High hosted by Kyle Kallgren. Rest assured, I have watched the movie, and it is indeed as terrible as the episode proclaims. Instead, I will review and respond to another piece of media made by Mr. Emmerich regarding Shakespeare's works that are tangentially related to the film.
Before the movie's release, Roland produced and hosted a short video essay in which he provided ten reasons why he believed Shakespeare was a fraud. Needless to say, every claim is fraught with misconceptions and provides a classic case of absence of evidence mistaken for evidence of absence. Many of the questions he proposed in the video are brought up and "answered" (terribly and incorrectly) in his big movie. However, even the most fleeting glance of history and cultural context will immediately showcase how childish and arrogant these questions are.
Here are my responses to Roland's ten claims regarding Shakespeare's authorship question.
Question#1:
Why is there no evidence of Shakespeare's handwriting?
Answer:
Because no one bothered to preserve it. Shakespeare lived in a time before the concept of "biography" was around. Unless you were royalty, no one worked to preserve letters, journals, or other such chronicles of your life. Any such documents were normally lost to history. Plus, while popular and beloved in his time, Shakespeare was not the sort of high-class privileged person to warrant such treatment. It's not that no one wanted us to know who he was; he was just not important enough to historians of the time.
Besides, despite what the Anti-Stradfordians would have you believe, there is indeed evidence of Shakespeare's handwriting. After all, how else would they have been able to compare his signature with other writers and poets of the time?
Question#2:
If Shakespeare himself was such a genius at writing, why were both of his daughters illiterate?
Answer:
Education for women in Shakespeare's time, even amongst the aristocracy, was minimal at best and non-existent at worst. Women were basically regarded as second-class citizens who had no purpose in a "man's" world outside of servitude and producing children. This attitude is still practiced within the GOP. Oh, was that my out-loud voice?
Question#3:
If Shakespeare was not of the upper class, how was he so familiar with their ways?
Answer:
Shakespeare lived and worked within the aristocracy despite not being one himself. Shakespeare's audience consisted of both working-class folks and royalty, so it often became good to familiarize himself with both classes' recognizable things. If you're writing a story about a baseball player, and you don't know anything about the sport, you will either research the subject extensively or not write the story at all.
Question#4:
If Shakespeare was so good at writing, why was his signature so sloppy and terrible compared to his peers like Christopher Marlowe or Francis Bacon?
Answer:
Good penmanship does not automatically indicate good or talented writing. Quentin Tarantino, the filmmaker who won the Best Original Screenplay Oscar for his films Pulp Fiction and Django Unchained, writes all of his scripts by hand in sloppy, often incoherent penmanship. His scribbles are then handed over to an assistant who types and formats his scripts for production. All because Quentin Tarantino, talented though he is, utterly despises modern technology and prefers to remain as analog as possible. Are we to believe that Quentin Tarantino never actually wrote any of his works because he doesn't use a keyboard?
Question#5:
Why do none of Shakespeare's works reflect any of his own life experiences, like the loss of his young son?
Answer:
The concept of biography and auto-biographical inserts into one's creative writing did not exist in Shakespeare's time. Any such elements would have been mere coincidental trivia and nothing more. Plus, the assumption that people need to experience things before writing about them didn't come into fashion until the 19th century. Speaking as an author myself, in my book A Most Mutual Bond, the characters are attending Portland State University. I've never enrolled in that school, but I have been to Portland. Creative writing should never be constrained by one's experience, and anyone who says otherwise is only trying to boost their false sense of superiority.
Question#6:
How can it be that Shakespeare was so knowledgeable of things like medicine, philosophy, and aristocratic practices if he never attended The Stratford Grammar School or any school for that matter?
Answer:
Having an expensive education or traditional schooling does not denote intelligence. Just look at George W. Bush. Books were available to the middle class, and since Shakespeare was a professional writer, it stands to reason that he likely read a lot of them. Furthermore, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because there is no official record of Shakespeare attending any school does not prove that he never did.
Question#7:
Why did Shakespeare stop writing entirely after he retired?
Answer:
Why does anyone stop doing their job once they retire? Even if you love what you do, you might want to step away from it for a while if you've done it long enough. Also, since Shakespeare died in his mid-forties, it's easy to speculate that he might have continued writing after a few years of retirement. Cher has "retired" at least twice now.
Question#8:
How could Shakespeare know so much about Italy if he never traveled outside of England?
Answer:
Shakespeare loved Italy. Half of his plays mention or take place there. Even though he never traveled there, he somehow grew a fondness for the place. How? Well, several ways. He might have had close conversations with friends who had been there. He likely read many books about the place. He probably observed many paintings and sketches of the landscapes and buildings. It is possible to admire and learn about a location of interest and never actually go there. Fantasy writers do it all the time.
Question#9:
Why does Shakespeare's original Stratford monument depict him holding a sack of grain instead of the quill and parchment depicted today?
Answer:
Shakespeare had more than one profession. While Shakespeare was writing plays and sonnets, he or his family members in Stratford operated a small business selling malt and grain. This is something that the aristocrats simply didn't like. Because, as we all know, no artistic type has ever needed to maintain a day job to pay the bills while crafting masterpieces for the masses! As awesome as it would be, artists can't survive on dreams alone.
Question#10:
Why did Shakespeare not leave a single book or manuscript of his works to his family in his will?
Answer:
Because he didn't own any of his works. All of Shakespeare's plays belonged to the playhouses that paid for and staged them. There was no copyright system in Elizabethan times. Playwrights rarely made any money for their works outside of their initial commission payment with no royalties or ticket sales share.
Conclusion:
The authorship question is nothing more than a blatant attempt by entitled idiots to affirm their misplaced sense of superiority. Shakespeare was a talented writer whose works continue to resonate with all people of all backgrounds and professions. Shakespeare is not only a part of theatrical or literally culture but of all culture. If you cannot appreciate Shakespeare's universality and can only see him through the fogged lens of elitism, then you don't truly understand Shakespeare at all.
Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment